Would you buy a DTS-only DVD movie over a DD one? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Sevigny]

Don't push it Dave - you have avoided plenty of topics emanating from your own mistakes/assumptions... Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Terrell]

Because there is no argument to be made about this subject.

Uh-huh! YOu keep deluding yourself into thinking that. Keep quoting those meaningless numbers. As it stands, at this point I don't care enough to argue the point.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Ok lets forget the bit rate transfer! You mean to tell me that a 16 bit format sounds better than a 24bit format. If that is true then CD is better than SACD and we are wasting our money. How absurbed is that train of thought. The only arument that the DD crowed can make is, oh your brainwashed by dts or numbers arnt everything. Or dont use specifications or facts to confuse the issue. You are the deluded one as you have no leg to stand on! The simple fact is that a 24 bit format is better because there is more information to sample a wave form. The more completely you can reconstruct that wave form the more spacious and detailed it will sound. You can not argue this fact! GOODNIGHT NOW

 

[Adam Barratt]

You are the deluded one as you have no leg to stand on!

I strongly suggest you read the technical material available before making statements yourself which have absolutely no basis in fact.

Adam

 

[John P Grosskopf]

In order to be able support your possition of DD being as good as or better than DTS.

Dave,

As I said earlier, DD is very close to DTS quality. As a general rule DTS has a very slight edge in quality over DD, even though DD tracks on DVD sometimes sound better to me than DTS for whatever reason, meaning you can't give the prize to DTS 100% of the time.

This thread is about DTS and DD on DVD, not film, so bringing in the film delivery systems for each format is not relevant for this discussion. However since you have brought it up, I must say that I tend to frequent theaters that have SDDS over DD or DTS at least during the opening two weeks of a films run. SDDS just seems more alive in a huge setting; but alas, after running through film gates for over a week, the edge of the film print becomes damaged and the track tends to start exhibiting drop outs. Up until that point, SDDS is a fine system for large venues that can deliver up to 8 channels of great quality sound. Print damage also affects DD and DTS as well, though DTS is indeed the most durable due to its ability to skip past frame damage due to buffering and the fact that the film information is merely a time code and not encoded sound.

I might also add that is Sony so decided, they could easily reconfigure SDDS to add a discreet center rear and perhaps a ceiling fly-over channel to the mix by reassigning the left center and right center screen channels to these positions creating a more dynamic canopy of sound over the entire audience than either DTS or DD could hope to deliver. Many SDDS installations do not actually have the full 8 channel set up and not all SDDS films are mixed for the 8 channel configuration, so this might be a pipe dream on my part even though it is theoretically possible.

Also, you missed the point and the different masters for the DTS and DD versions of the Haunting on DVD. The DD 5.1 master was optimized for down mixing by Dreamworks, meaning the master for the DVD was compromised BEFORE the DVD authoring occurred. This is usually done only when no DD 2.0 track is to be included to make down-mixing possible for non 5.1 setups. With a 2.0 track included, this was not necessary, but Dreamworks did it any way...perhaps to give DTS and advantage over DD in comparrison to each other?

Had the DD 5.1 track not been optimized for broadcast/downconversion, I'm sure it would sound much closer to the DTS track. Even as it is now, it still comes very close to the DTS track.

When the playing fields are even, DD and DTS are very close in quality, and DD does it with more bits left over to boot. They're so close in my book that I'd rather they put the bits on DVD left over from DD back into the picture where improvement (at least to me) is more readily experienced and demonstratable on a consistent basis.

JMO

 

[Terrell]

As for nobody making an argument, there have been numerous posts making concvincing and accurate statements as to why your belief that DTS is automatically superior is flawed and flat out untrue. If you choose to ignore that, then that's your perogative. I've told you of double blind tests conducted by Stereophile and Home Theater magazine. These tests were level matched. In many instances, the DD track was chosen over the DTS, and vice versa. I suggest you seek them out.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I guess you should educate me on how a 24 bit recording from a 24 bit master is supperior to a 16bit recording from a 16 bit master. Yep this must be a flawed belief alright. As far as these double blind test you claimed to have brought up. I have just gone all the way back to the begining of this post and see nothing mentioned of this test. If I am wrong please point out where you have brought it up?

"In many instances, the DD track was chosen over the DTS, and vice versa. I suggest you seek them out."

That is a interesting statement due to every reveiw I have ever seen always favor the DTS track over DD. I accually do not remember ever seeing any articals where DD was prefered over DTS.

"A complex coding scheme, or algorithm, processes the audio signal based on the principles of psychoacoustics, the science of how we perceive sound. The coder takes advantage of noise and frequency masking to allow capturing the audio with just enough precision to make sure it sounds the same as the original. The more powerful the algorithm, the more precisely the encoder can shave bits without affecting the perceived sound quality. This is why some coder technologies such as Dolby Digital can sound just as good as others like DTS which use from two to four times as much data." (Dolby Labs)

Even Dolby admits that there format "can sound" notice that Dolby does not say they do sound better! Not even Dolby says they are supperior they will only say it can sound as good. IMHO the industry has adopted Dolby mainly because its smaller data size and lower data transfer rate. It does not take up as much bandwith to broadcast material in DD than it would in DTS. So if you think about multiple channels offering 5.1 suround material over cable or satalite dish. It is the logical choice to choose the format that takes up less bandwith. This is more critical as more digital or HD programing is offered with 5.1 surround sound. This is in no way proof that DD is better than DTS. I tried to search Stereophile magazine for the articles you mentioned, but was unable to find. I would be willing to read any supossed article if you can supply a link for the site and the article you are talking about.

 

[JohnRice]

Will someone PLEASE get me a bucket?
Is there even a remote chance a thread having anything to do with DTS and DD will ever be started without it degenerating into a pointless, misinformed, backstabbing, rambling pile of crap? Way to stay on-topic guys! The original question was rather simple, and this whole line of "discussion," and I use the term loosely, has nothing to do with it.
One more comment---GRAMMAR, PUNCTUATION, SPELLING and PARAGRAPHS!

 

[Eric Sevigny]

Dave:
Why do you pick on the use of one word out of a paragraph Dolby wrote on the issue when there is a whole .pdf discussing their stance which is a lot more clear then what you are trying to insinuate here.
Just take a look:
Dolby on DTS
JohnRice:
IMHO, the title of the thread does invite discussion of both formats... It's basically a DTS versus DD thread title disguised as a poll. Granted, it may not have been the intent of the original poster.

 

[Dave Moritz]

That is not where I got my data from there site. But I have seen that document. The so called evaluation is done by Dolby in unnamed studios. A evaluation needs to be done by a neutral company or publication. Dolby is not about to flat out say they lost. Of course they will claim they where the winner of a evaluation that they where responsible for. Nothing like the fox being in charge of the hen house. And even though the original intent of this tread may have been different. It still is getting into the DD vs DTS arena.

 

[Terrell]

I'd also recommend reading the double blind test conducted between DD and DTS in a previous issue of Home Theater magazine. The results were surprising.

As for links to the direct article, you have to find the issue. You won't find most of their articles on their websites. As for posting other links, I could post a pile, but they would do no good. You'd keep spouting off bit-rate garbage and bits garbage. I also love how you conveniently skip over Adam's post, since he accurately refuted your very statements.

And John, lighten up. The very title of the thread asks whether you choose DTS-only movies over a DD one. It practically invites discussion.

 

[John P Grosskopf]

And John, lighten up. The very title of the thread asks whether you choose DTS-only movies over a DD one. It practically invites discussion.

Well in that case, I guess I'd have to say no, as I'd prefer the DTS track be skipped and the extra bits spent on optimizing picture instead.

I'd also dump the extras to squeeze in more picture quality too (especially on longer films).

 

[Terrell]

John, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at JohnRice.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Dave,
i'll say this for you, you certaintly are one steadfast individual, most guys would have cracked under all this heat. I commend you for standing up for your beliefs...misguided as they may be.
Dave, I don't know you and you don't know me, but I have to tell you this, and from your posts it's not the first time you've heard it either...
you are far, far, FAR too critical a listener!
Their is absolutly nothing wrong with DD as an acceptable sound format. I was watching Toy Story 2 today and was thinking about what you said about it sounding "ok", to be honest with you Dave, I cannot fathom ANYONE having a problem with this audio mix! It's stellar DD 5.1.
Sorry, but I thought i'd just cut through all this BS and get right to the heart of it: Your waaaay too hard on DD, plain and simple.

 

[Ryan_TD]

i tend to get disc with more supplements over dts bare-boned. let's face it "saving private ryan" is one of the top 5 DD mixes out there. period. i can live with that. i will admit, however that when compared back to back the dts does take the cake. so, many of you see this as a no-brainer. get the dts. but i havethe excellent "into the breach" documentary which to me is worth more to have. look at it this way - unless i'm doing back-to-back direct comparisons with the movies DD & dts, i'm not gonna sit there with a frown on my face thinking to myself that the sound isn't that good. because it is.

also i know this will stir up some controversy but i didn't notice much of a difference between the new 'fixed dts' jurassic park dvd with the dd jurassic park. i compared several scenes back-to-back and i just wasn't feeling it.
any one know of a good chapter to gp to where the difference might be drastically different. i really WANT to notice this superior dts track in all its glory but i'm not sold on it yet. any thoughts?

 

[JohnRice]

How prophetic, Kami.

 

[Terrell]

Well, you can either not discuss it, and send this thread to the polls section. Or, you can discuss the matter at hand, which absolutely begs for a discussion on DTS and DD, and leave it right here.

 

[Adam Barratt]

I guess you should educate me on how a 24 bit recording from a 24 bit master is supperior to a 16bit recording from a 16 bit master.

I don't think anyone is trying to show this. However, I really don't see how this argument has anything to do with DTS or Dolby Digital one way or the other.

Adam

 

[John P Grosskopf]

I don't think anyone is trying to show this. However, I really don't see how this argument has anything to do with DTS or Dolby Digital one way or the other.

Theoretically, the bigger the sample, the better the quality.

In real world application, the theory however may not play out to a degree perceivable by everyone due to psychoacoustics and statistical analysis.

There comes a point of diminishing returns and sacrificing the quality of one thing for the betterment of another.

With DTS being the bit hog it is (even at half rate), and even if it is superior to DD (though I would argue by the thinnest of margins) I would not say it is worth the sacrifice in bandwidth ot get that moddest superiority.

Put the bits in the picture instead.

Think about it. With one DD track and a full DVD bit rate of 10 MBS, approximately 45 minutes of program material can be fit on a single layer DVD; a two layer disc at that rate in the neighborhood of 80 minutes.

Most movies come in at 120 minutes or less on average. With two layers, a film could be encoded with minimal compression and look and sound absolutely stunning if all bits were dedicated to its presentation with only a single DD track and no extras (especially considering what they did with LOTR at 178 minutes).

 

[Adam Barratt]

Think about it. With one DD track and a full DVD bit rate of 10 MBS, approximately 45 minutes of program material can be fit on a single layer DVD; a two layer disc at that rate in the neighborhood of 80 minutes.

I get 62 minutes and 113 minutes respectively at 10.08Mbps. I agree that the data occupied by a DTS track would be better used for video (or commentaries/supplemental extras). In fact, I believe that DTS in its now common low bit-rate implementation offers no benefits above a standard 448kbps Dolby Digital soundtrack and that its inclusion on most DVDs is a complete waste of limited resources.

Adam