What's happening to dts (1 Viewer)

[David Rogers]

The last time I saw the frequent DD vs DTS debate erupt here at HTF some clever souls popped in with frequency or audiograph (or whatever they were) graphs of the sound levels and such. What I recall from all of it the last time was DTS *sometimes* on *some* soundtracks had minor (5-10% tops) quality edges with slightly more expansive sound or slightly deeper bass and so forth. Wasn't my research so don't yell at me if you have some basis for grabbing at your mouse to click "reply". The blind DDvDTS tests I fully believe, as I'm picky about what I listen to and rarely notice any differences between DD or DTS.
I do know that DTS consumes a significantly higher amount of the bit budget on a DVD, which I dislike in the *EXTREME* as that space could go for an audio commentary, deleted scenes, or something else of more value than a outsized soundtrack that even many trained listeners couldn't distingish from "the other format".
Okay, discuss amongst yourselves. Here's a topic. Elevators are out to rule the galaxy. El is "The" in some languages, and vator was that guy in Star Wars who was mean to Princess Leia. Discuss.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is all very interesting but I have to say again that the only thing that the movies theaters can give me now is a bigger screen and the social atmosphere.

That's certainly true, I guess it just depends on how much you value those aspects. For me personally, it equates to a totally different experience.

 

[Terrell]

What I recall from all of it the last time was DTS *sometimes* on *some* soundtracks had minor (5-10% tops) quality edges with slightly more expansive sound or slightly deeper bass and so forth. Wasn't my research so don't yell at me if you have some basis for grabbing at your mouse to click "reply". The blind DDvDTS tests I fully believe, as I'm picky about what I listen to and rarely notice any differences between DD or DTS.

Well, a number of different magazines have done double blind tests comparing DTS versus DD. These tests were conducted with people knowledgeable about home theater, as well as DD and DTS. And you're right! The conclusion one magazine came to is that when both DD and DTS is done right, the difference is minimal, and in some cases DD was better. It's gotten to the point where many people have fooled themselves into thinking that DTS is drastically better. It's not, unless the DTS track is reference quality, and the DD track is not. The differences usually only came down to DTS having slightly better bass. Home Theater magazine ran one of these tests. I don't know the issue, but I did read it.

My experience has been that when dealing with reference DTS and DD tracks, the DTS track normally has a an advantage in bass. I've come to the conclusion that the differences are indeed small.

As for what happened to DTS, nothing really. Dealing with DTS is much more of a pain in the ass than using DD. It also eats up much more space. I personally have gotten to the point where I just want a high bitrate, reference quality DD track, along with a reference quality anamorphic widescreen transfer, and I'm happy. I used to be gung-ho on DTS. Now it doesn't even bother me if the DD is very good. Save the extra space for the transfer. But that's just me.

 

[Shad R]

Hmmm...interesting. Here's my opinion...everytime I see a movie in DTS, it sounds WAY too loud and the bass sounds overcooked (could just be the movie theater, though, milking the sound for all it's worth), but when I see a Dolby Digital movie, it sounds more balanced. There's a theater in Denver (can't remember what it's called) that I go to, and they have both DTS and Dolby Digital auditoriums, and that's what I've come to conclude.

 

[Aaron Garman]

Hello all. I work at a local theatre here and run our projection booth from time to time. For the most part, our theatres have DTS, but we do have two with Dolby Digital. One of these Dolby houses used to be a DTS house however. One thing I have noticed is that this house does not sound as good as it used to when it was a DTS house. In addition, I trust the DTS format moreso at our theatre. It seems everytime I watch a film in one of the Dolby houses, something is wrong with the reader and it will not pick up the Dolby Digital track. When I watch a film in a DTS house, that sound plays crystal clear. If people working in theatres would just report difficulties (such as drives going out) or actually switch the discs (I do this every week) then DTS would be the preferred sound format. I still chuckle when I watch a movie with certain people and they cannot tell if the digital sound system is working or not. In actuallity it irks me that most people working up there don't care if it works or not, just as long as sound is running.
Aaron Garman

 

[Chauncey_G]

I also work at a movie theater projection booth, and I have to chime in to say that DTS has always been my favorite, but not because I think DTS sounds better in a theater than Dolby Digital does. It's because DTS is simply more reliable. Earlier, Jesse complained about prints not showing up with discs. That's not a DTS problem; that's a film distributor problem. As far as the trailers go, it is true that if you don't have the preview disc then you're listening to them in analog, but I usually look at the trailers as extras: I'm there to see the movie.

I prefer DTS because it's soundtrack is not actually printed on the film itself, it comes on CD's. All that is on the film is a dot-dash timecode that the reader uses to sync up the CD player. DTS, in my experience, is much more reliable because the soundtrack cannot get dirty or scratched with repeated showings, it handles film spices better, and digital dropouts (where there's something wrong with the digital track and the player automatically reverts to analog sound) are virtually non-existent.

Don't get me wrong: Dolby Digital is good, but I think DTS is better for simple operational issues.

 

[Adam Barratt]

I think this thread has gone off on two completely different tangents. Something people have to realise is that DTS and Dolby Digital are very different in their theatrical and domestic incarnations.

Dolby Digital in theatres is presented on a completely different medium and at a bit-rate never used on DVD. DTS in theatres is a completely and fundamentally different system than that found on DVD; DTS had nothing to do with the development of the format used by the theatrical system, and merely licence the technology used. Apart from this fundamental difference in playback technology, further differences exist. Theatrical DTS doesn't have a discrete LFE channel and no bass content in the surround channels below 80Hz (this material is stripped out to create the LFE channel). These differences make opinions about sound quality in theatres vs. a home based only on the format used completely invalid and wholly pointless.

I personally prefer DTS in theatres, for many of the purely practical reasons outlined by others above: no synch issues and no problems with dropouts due to dirt or splices. As for which sounds better, I have no idea. Considering how many other factors influence ultimate sound quality in a theatre (amplifiers, speakers, calibration, film condition, acoustics) the format used is, IMHO, irrelevant.

On DVD things are very different and much more complicated and I prefer Dolby Digital (the system) over DTS in its current, compromised, low bit-rate implementation.

Anyone who has ever read the specs from both formats knows that dts is far lest compressed than dolby digital and therefor far more dynamic.

One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other (and yes, I have read the specs).

Adam

 

[Terrell]

The only fair way to compare the two is to compare them at the same bitrate. However, even comparing 448 DD to 754 DTS, the differences are usually negligible. That's assuming both tracks are equal in quality. One track can be a poor transfer while another can be agreat transfer.

I do agree with Adam that there are so many variables that can affect the sound quality, it's almost impossible to determine.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The only fair way to compare the two is to compare them at the same bitrate.

Even that isn't accurate since the compression schemes are completely different. It's a really tough thing to say one format is better than the other.

 

[Stephen Houdek]

Well guys, I'm going to respond to the HT Vs. RT portion of this thread. I don't go to the movies anymore. I will wait till it is released on DVD, rent it, then if it is of such quality that it deserves my hard earned cash I buy it.

I enjoy watching a film at home FAR more than driving to the local theatre and dropping $25 only to have some punk kicking the back of my seat or constantly talking throughout the movie. I don't understand the logic of investing all this money in an HT and still go to the theatre? Is your HT reserved strictly for re-runs? I won't relegate mine to that level. Just MHO.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Is your HT reserved strictly for re-runs?

So many films are released that I can't get to the theater to see all of them. My HT is for the ones I want to see again and all the others that I missed in theaters.

M.

 

[Terrell]

Even that isn't accurate since the compression schemes are completely different.

True! But it's about the only fair way to compare te two. Certainly much more fair than comparing 754 to 448. Again though, even the differences there are normally negligible, all things being equal.

I gotta hand it to DTS marketing department. They've done a masterful job in getting many to believe that DTS is automatically superior. Even though that's far from a provable fact.

 

[Damin J Toell]

True! But it's about the only fair way to compare te two.

No, it 100% isn't. When comparing differenct codecs, comparisons based on bitrate are completely meaningless. It completely depends on how the codec works.
DJ

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

True! But it's about the only fair way to compare te two. Certainly much more fair than comparing 754 to 448. Again though, even the differences there are normally negligible, all things being equal.

But one uses those 754 completely differently then the other uses those 448. Certainly DTS is the less efficient of the two, but wheither it results in a better or worse final product is the topic of debate (and really the only thing that matters, since they won't be doing any 448k DTS tracks anytime soon).

 

[Geoff_D]

dts vs. Dolby Digital: the debate will rage forever. Specs will be quoted and counter-quoted 'till the end of time. For me, in the home theatre environment, it just comes down to personal preference. In particular, DD LFE tends to sound more boomy than dts equivalents on the 30-odd dts discs I have, most notably on JP3 and T2:UE. When done right, dts soundfields tends to gel together better than comparable DD ones - but maybe that's because of the louder levels (official!) of many dts tracks.

 

[Terrell]

No, it 100% isn't. When comparing differenct codecs, comparisons based on bitrate are completely meaningless. It completely depends on how the codec works.

Okay, tell me how the comparison can be fair?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Okay, tell me how the comparison can be fair?

That's the problem. It really can't be.

 

[Terrell]

Well, if you're gonna compare the two, there at least should be some way to fairly and accurately vompare the two, at least to some degree. Unless, we just settle for comparing the two as they are on DVD.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, if you're gonna compare the two, there at least should be some way to fairly and accurately vompare the two, at least to some degree.

The bitrate itself, however, is not a "fair and accurate" method of comparison. DD on DVD, for example, can only go as high as 448 kbps. By your methodology, we would have to reduce (or increase) any other codec to 448 in order to get an accurate comparison to DD. This would mean, for instance, reducing an LPCM track to 448, completely ruining that track and making it useless for comparison. It would be like reducing a Jaguar's engine to the horsepower of a riding mower in order to figure out whether the Jaguar or the riding mower provided the better ride. The codecs should be compared at the bitrates at which they actually get used. Fabricating bitrates that would never be used on any DVD ever in the name of "fairness" doesn't function as a meangingful comparison in any way. Not only does it ignore the fact that bitrates alone are fairly meaningless, it uses a non-existant comparison that has no practical utility for anyone.

DJ

 

[Brian Ruth]

Do many DVDs have DTS tracks at a bitrate HIGHER than 754?