Question:
Seems theres a mixed opinion on just how much better then DD is DTS.
Whats your thoughts. Ive got a DD digitheatre, ive had it 4 months and before that I had pro logoc. I have thought about upgrading to DTS but im concerned that I wont be as impressed as to when I got my DD set up when previously using my pro logic set up.
You're not going to be particularly impressed.
Theres a huge body of evidence massing that those saying DTS is superior are hearing what they want to hear (saw an article at SMR Home Theatre saying as much). I do believe in some circumstances DTS titles do recieve superior mastering, but given an equal like-for-like transfer from source to DD or DTS, don't expect to hear much difference.
Most reviewers are very vague when reviewing DTS titles and usually mention a "slight difference" or "tigher bass" but I'm sure they write this because they feel they SHOULD rather than because they actually believe it :)
DTS is certainly LOUDER that DD, and high volume is the old salesmens trick when trying to flog the HIFI kit he gets the best commision on.
I'm not saying DTS is all Snake Oil, but I've got loads of DTS titles, and fairly decent kit, and apart from the volume I can't notice a difference.
Your mileage may vary....
PS - Don't believe the higher bitrate argument as most DTS titles only use half bit-rate anyway, and the Dolby Digital decoder is acknowledged to be superior to DTS by those in the know.
PS2 - The only DTS titles that most people say are superior to DD are Jaws and Saving Private Ryan, both of which are by Steven Spielburg who happens to be a part-owner and backer of DTS.
Interesting!!!
Im not looking at getting DTS just curious as to what peoples opinions are on this subject
I'd generally agree with that, I have difficulty really hearing a huge difference between the two, trouble is sound is so subjective and the various reviews can lead you to think that maybe you're deaf or something.
Admittedly I haven't heard SPR or Jaws DTS but I would definitely say you won't be as chuffed with a DD to DTS upgrade than you were with the DP to DD one.
However, I would respectfully suggest that you would notice significant improvement if you went from the Digitheatre to a real (sorry, not meaning to sound elitist) amp and speaker set-up.
I certainly did notice a great improvement when I traded in my Digitheatre
That said, it is still going to be subjective and your listening environment will play huge part in making your kit sound good or bad, as you know.
Originally posted by AndySymbian
You're not going to be particularly impressed.
DTS is certainly LOUDER that DD, and high volume is the old salesmens trick when trying to flog the HIFI kit he gets the best commision on.
Whilst I agree with the majority of Andy's comments I would disagree slightly with the "louder" argument. I have the Prince Rave Un2 the Year 2000 DVD which has both DTS and DD tracks (and you can switch "on the fly" as it were) and the DTS track actually seems quieter.
I think the difference is not one of "louder" but one of dynamic range. DTS seems wider because it is mastered with a wider dynamic range, hence the really loud stuff seems even louder that it does with DD.
As far as quality goes, you can certainly hear a difference betweeen the 2 different tracks, and IMO DTS is better, there is far more transparency in the high frequencies (cymbals, percussion etc) and the kick drum seems to reverberate for longer dying away gently whereas on the DD track it stops abruptly, the encoding deciding that I can't hear it at that level.
In answer to the original question, there is not a huge difference between DD and DTS, at the budget end of the market, there probably is only a tiny difference as the electronics and speakers won't be very revealing.
My advice is to stick with the Digitheatre for now, save up some real money and buy a "better than budget" separates system when you can afford it.
Originally posted by lovegroova
My advice is to stick with the Digitheatre for now, save up some real money and buy a "better than budget" separates system when you can afford it.
Sound advice from both Lovegroova and Roy about holding tight and upgrading when more funds are available.
Digitheatres are good value and have much to recommend when used in a small and undemanding environment, but a decent amp/receiver for c.£300-400 will give a far greater improvement than simply moving from DD to DTS.
As far as the DD vs DTS argument goes, I've several discs with both soundtracks on and the only real difference (that I could hear) was with the R1 version of Galaxy Quest. My thinking now is that if a film ships with both DD and DTS soundtracks then great, if it's "only" DD 5.1, then that's more than good enough for me.
I have a Yamaha DSP A5 amplifier. It has a setting for Dynamic Range, which by default is set to standard (STD). The other settings are MIN(imum) and MAX(imum). As I understand it the amplifier applies some kind of audio compression which limits the dynamic range of the audio (gotta give the neighbours a break from time to time). However, if I remember correctly, the amp can only perform this operation on Dolby Digital audio streams.
I noticed this yesterday when watching T2:UE in DTS. The first nuclear explosion sequence seemed incredibly loud. Later I watched the same sequence in DD with the amp still set to STD range and it seemed much lower in volume.
I wonder if this might be the reason that DTS seems louder?
Please note, I'm not deriding DTS, merely making an observation. I generally listen to a DTS soundtrack if I have the option...
On a side note, I've just got hold of Maniac which has a DTS ES soundtrack...the mind boggles?
I can hear the difference. And that is exactly what it is, a difference. If you like it or not is a personal opinion and that is the factor that may be swayed by others opinions. I don't buy the view that people are fooled into thinking a system is better simply because it is louder. IMO that does not give a great deal of credit to the abilities of those of us in the home cinema fraternity, most of whom know more than your average Comet salesperson! (No offence to any above average Comet salespeople!) I actually looked in some depth to independant comparisons between the 2 and they both have their merits. DD is said to be the cleverer of the 2, preserving much of the encoded information with a remarkably small bitrate. DTS however preserves the information with measureably better fidelity, but as already stated, you may not find the aural differences all that startling.
Originally posted by andrew_lee
I have a Yamaha DSP A5 amplifier. It has a setting for Dynamic Range, which by default is set to standard (STD). The other settings are MIN(imum) and MAX(imum). As I understand it the amplifier applies some kind of audio compression which limits the dynamic range of the audio (gotta give the neighbours a break from time to time). However, if I remember correctly, the amp can only perform this operation on Dolby Digital audio streams.
I noticed this yesterday when watching T2:UE in DTS. The first nuclear explosion sequence seemed incredibly loud. Later I watched the same sequence in DD with the amp still set to STD range and it seemed much lower in volume.
I wonder if this might be the reason that DTS seems louder?
Please note, I'm not deriding DTS, merely making an observation. I generally listen to a DTS soundtrack if I have the option...
On a side note, I've just got hold of Maniac which has a DTS ES soundtrack...the mind boggles?
As I understand it, that's right.
Any DR compression on DTS would need to be done in the analogue domain - and there are just too many side effects for this to be worthwhile.
Despite the fact that Dolby's compression ratio puts them at a bitrate disadvantage - the whole design concept of DD is much more elegant and forward thinking than that of the DTS system.
I wouldn't argue that DTS isn't slightly better than DD - I think it is - but only slightly.
The differences are not worth getting over-excited about to be honest.
Sure, in the world of hifi, where the pursuit absolute fidelity is paramount, then DTS would win hands down. It's better in sound quality terms, and that's all there would be to it, even if it's only slightly better.
But in the world of home theatre, where hopefully your mind will be distracted from critical listening by the actual movie on the screen, then DTS' advantage is, IMO, a bit academic.
This is all bearing in mind, that we have only been able to compare those discs which have both DD and DTS tracks, and we aren't sure about the actual mastering quality of each, and many DTS tracks are half bitrate in any case, often to make it fit on the single disc.
If there were a choice of a DVD with a DD track, and one with both DD+DTS, or DTS+PCM, I'd probably go for the DTS disc, if the price were the same or maybe a quid dearer. Five quid dearer, then I'm not too sure. And this is discounting the fact that some extras may be dropped from the disc to make way for the DTS track (personally I'm really not that bothered about extras - but some people are).
If putting a DTS track on, meant that they had to split the movie (either 2 discs or a flipper), then I'd definitely stick to DD, even if the DTS version was full bitrate.
Perhaps DTS should petition the DVD licensing authorities, to allow DVD-Video discs with just a DTS track on (perhaps as special edition DTS versions) - after all Dolby succeeded in doing this for R2.
As a sidenote, I read that in the USA, SPR-DD outsold SPR-DTS by almost 50 to 1 - food for thought. Is this why some R1 discs with DTS, never make it to R2 with a DTS track (although I suspect that DTS would do rather better in Europe - some marketing decisions do seem odd).
I'd certainly agree with the comments already made, while dts is good, it is questionable whether it is better. I tend to select the dts soundtrack when I watch a disk with both, simply because it sounds as good, if not better ( probably due to mastering - e.g. Jaws ) than the Dolby Digital one.
However, I am yet to hear a dts/Dolby Digital disk where the soundtracks sound similiar in character - there always seems to be something different about the two tracks that can't just be down to the encoding/decoding - if it was all comparisions would have the same differences. While it's nice to have two different mixes of the same soundtrack I don't think it aids comparisons - which are subjective enough anyway. A recent example of this is on the Orbital DVD 'The Altogether'. Last night I sat down to compare 448Kb/s DD to full bitrate dts ( 1.5Mb/s? ) and who'd have guessed it, the mixes are completely different! Even down to the positioning of the music in the room, dts was rear-focused where DD was much more front biased.....what can you do?
As an aside, some of the best soundtracks, imo, are on disks with just Dolby Digital: Broken Arrow, Apocalypse Now and MI:2 spring to mind.
Simon
There's an excellent recent article on the subject over at Home Cinema Choice entitled 'Sound Wars (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/200105SoundWars/200105SoundWars.shtml)' which refers to a bun-fight between Dolby and DTS documented here (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/DolbyVsDTS/Dolby.shtml) (Dolby on DTS) and here (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/DolbyVsDTS/DTS.shtml) (DTS rebuttal).
It's all good stuff, but here are a few bits that I found particularly interesting:
Loudness. Dolby Digital includes a dialog normalization feature designed to keep the level of dialogue consistent in all Dolby Digital software. (DTS does not include this feature). The most common setting of dialnorm reduces movie loudness by 4dB.
Dolby Digital soundtracks are sometimes changed during mastering -- some, most notably Saving Private Ryan and other Dreamworks titles, have had portions of the LFE signal redirected to other channels to help improve compatibility for stereo listeners.
Clearly any performance gap that may have existed between Dolby Digital and DTS due to the substantial difference in bitrates is no longer a factor when comparing the two. As 754kb/s DTS soundtracks are demonstrably technically inferior to its 448kb/s Dolby Digital counterparts, we can expect to see a shift away from an unqualified belief that a DTS soundtrack will always be superior. This has been borne out of late by the Region 1 release of Jurassic Park on both DTS and Dolby Digital, upon which the Dolby Digital soundtrack clearly outperforms the DTS alternative.
Most scientifically-conducted blind testing, where the dialogue normalisation feature of Dolby Digital is taken into consideration, concludes that DTS and Dolby Digital do indeed sound 'different', but that listeners cannot categorically state that one is superior to the other. Factor into the argument the differences in source material encountered in the home (DTS and Dolby Digital soundtracks aren't always produced from the same master) and their respective fidelity, and what we're left with is an uncertain and ever-changing conclusion.
Following the experiences and evaluations at Warner Bros, its engineers did not feel that the inclusion of a DTS soundtrack upon any subsequent DVD titles was a worthwhile exercise.
When considering the sonic superiority of either Dolby Digital or DTS, it's also worth noting the sound differences between Region 1 and Region 2 discs in both formats. Dolby Digital, for example, comes in two flavours: 384kbs (the standard UK specification) or the wider 448kbs (the US standard). The UK Dolby Digital track is bandwidth-limited in order to fit also those extra European subtitles. This means more dynamic compression on the UK release discs. Forget listening out for the differences between DTS and Dolby Digital, try spotting the differences between Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital! But to put this in perspective, even the bandwidth limited 384kbs Dolby Digital is more dynamic than the Dolby Digital cinema system which runs at 328kbs.
From my own point of view I would agree with most of what has already been said in this thread. DTS sounds 'different' rather than 'better'. In the light of the Dolby and DTS comments, though, I probably won't bother buying any more DTS only DVDs unless they use the full 1.5Mbps bitrate or are known to contain a significantly better mix.
I've only got two DTS titles myself - Gladiator and Seven
On Gladiator there is a very clear 'yes, that sounds better' reaction - but on Seven it sounds exactly the same regardless of it being DTS or DD if I'm being honest with you.
I'd still prefer DTS though, just because I'm a snob ;)
Originally posted by Mr Flibble
I've only got two DTS titles myself - Gladiator and Seven
On Gladiator there is a very clear 'yes, that sounds better' reaction - but on Seven it sounds exactly the same regardless of it being DTS or DD if I'm being honest with you.
I'd still prefer DTS though, just because I'm a snob ;)
SNOB!!!!!!!:o
Hmmm, handbags at 10 paces!
I've done a listening test on the only disc I have with both DD and DTS on - Gladiator.
I think the surround panning on the opening battle sequences is slightly better on DTS, and also in the quieter moments of the film, the DTS tarck seems ever so slightly more "atmospheric".
Nothing to get excited over though - and otherwise there's little appreciable difference IMO.
All this not withstanding the stuff about master sourcing etc etc.
I assume that Gladiator is a half bitrate DTS track - I think it's certainly not inferior to DD (although DR compression capability for late night viewing is something I personally find very handy with DD), but then it's hardly any superior either.
Perhaps a full bitrate track would be better, but without being able to listen to it, I couldn't say!
What I would like to see on a disc now, is a 24bit/96kHz PCM, Dolby Surround encoded stereo track, which could then be fed into a DPL2 decoder.
Free of any form of compression, it would be interesting to see how it compared.
Originally posted by MikeK
What I would like to see on a disc now, is a 24bit/96kHz PCM, Dolby Surround encoded stereo track, which could then be fed into a DPL2 decoder.
Free of any form of compression, it would be interesting to see how it compared.
Do the surrounds in DPL2 cover the full frequency range, or are they limited to 8Khz as in ordinary DPL? If that is the case then it would clearly be inferior to DD or DTS, never mind leakage across the channels as per DPL.
Originally posted by lovegroova
Do the surrounds in DPL2 cover the full frequency range, or are they limited to 8Khz as in ordinary DPL? If that is the case then it would clearly be inferior to DD or DTS, never mind leakage across the channels as per DPL.
The rears in DPL2 are full range stereo.
Quite how they've managed stereo from a mono signal, I don't know - so I'd read pseudo stereo for that. The channel seperation is also improved, as is effects panning and direction
I had a demo from VHS tapes, and it was quite impressive (not as good as 5.1 though).
Would just like to see how good it gets in comparison to DD/DTS given a very high quality feed (far higher than DD/DTS)
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on this subject...
In my opinion there is a definate noticable difference between DD and DTS. As people have already mentioned the sounds are louder and are noticably more accurate and more defined than DD. The biggest difference for me when using DTS is the output from the rear speakers. You hear SO MUCH more from the rears than you do when listening to DD.
Play the shootout sequence at the start of Hannibal and listen to how you can hear bullets flying past your head from the rear speakers - I can't hear nowhere near as much in DD. Also another good test is the battle scene at the start of Gladiator - again you can hear the arrows flying past your head with astounding accuracy, its a different story for me in DD.
Bye.
I've always taken DTS to be not necessarily better, but just a different audio mix. I think that's clearly demonstrated by HBK757's post above.
Still, I'd always take a DTS mix over a DD one, if only for the placebo effect. :p
I used to be of the opinion that DTS was more musical sounding and better at revealing detail in soundtracks with a lot going on but of late i've heard some very impressive dolby digital soundtracks and to be honest I think it's all down to the skill of the soundtrack engineer who creates the final mix.
IMHO I would guess that it's easier to master a DTS track to sound impressive but DD requires a higher class of sound engineer to get the same performance out of the DD engine. To back this up, i've noticed that quite a few of my newer DD disks seem to be of higher audio quality than titles from a year or so back.
On balance I still tend to consider DTS has the advantage in the real world but I think the difference is narrowing as the DD soundtrack engineers master the system.
For the record, the most musical sounding soundtrack in DD that I can think of offhand is probably on the R2 release of the Pierce Brosnan version of The Thomas Crown Affair. One sweet sounding DD5.1 soundtrack. The brand new release of Enemy At The Gates R1 also has a very active and punchy DD5.1 soundtrack.
All subjective and based on personal listening preferences so I guess this one will run and run. :)
Originally posted by Ron Hill
I used to be of the opinion that DTS was more musical sounding and better at revealing detail in soundtracks with a lot going on but of late i've heard some very impressive dolby digital soundtracks and to be honest I think it's all down to the skill of the soundtrack engineer who creates the final mix.
IMHO I would guess that it's easier to master a DTS track to sound impressive but DD requires a higher class of sound engineer to get the same performance out of the DD engine. To back this up, i've noticed that quite a few of my newer DD disks seem to be of higher audio quality than titles from a year or so back.
On balance I still tend to consider DTS has the advantage in the real world but I think the difference is narrowing as the DD soundtrack engineers master the system.
For the record, the most musical sounding soundtrack in DD that I can think of offhand is probably on the R2 release of the Pierce Brosnan version of The Thomas Crown Affair. One sweet sounding DD5.1 soundtrack. The brand new release of Enemy At The Gates R1 also has a very active and punchy DD5.1 soundtrack.
All subjective and based on personal listening preferences so I guess this one will run and run. :)
As well as the skill of the sound engineer (or whatever the guy who creates the DD track calls himself), along with improvements made in the encoder devices themselves, this illustrates one of the advantages of the Dolby system (and why it's said to be "cleverer")
Dolby can include code in the actual bitstream which tells the decoder how to decode the datastream - essentially on-the-fly backwards compatible upgrades.
I don't have the details on this (perhaps it's confidential) but AFAIK, a DTS decoder can't do this, as it was never designed to be able to.
I am about to buy this DVD, but I am really confused which one to get since according to amazon.com, the DTS feature does not inclued the special featurette:
"Editor's Note
Because the DTS data stream demands more storage capacity on the DVD format, the DTS edition of Saving Private Ryan does not include the behind-the-scenes documentary featurette that is included on the Dolby Digital 5.1 channel edition. Those interested in purchasing the DTS edition should be aware that this additional feature was necessarily sacrificed to accommodate the DTS soundtrack."
Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Amazon is quite correct. The DTS version is missing the featurette and the DD5.1 track. AFAIK the DTS version is only available in R1.
Note that it is mandatory to mention the DTS version of Saving Private Ryan in any DD vs. DTS debate. :D Whether the DTS version is actually any better than the DD5.1 version is even harder to judge than usual because very few people own both DVDs!
Well, I finally bit the bullet and got the DD version.
As WHY DreamWorks didn't include BOTH versions (as in Gladiator which is a benchmark of DVDs) on their release it is beyond me.
Whats your thoughts. Ive got a DD digitheatre, ive had it 4 months and before that I had pro logoc. I have thought about upgrading to DTS but im concerned that I wont be as impressed as to when I got my DD set up when previously using my pro logic set up.
Answers:
You're not going to be particularly impressed.
Theres a huge body of evidence massing that those saying DTS is superior are hearing what they want to hear (saw an article at SMR Home Theatre saying as much). I do believe in some circumstances DTS titles do recieve superior mastering, but given an equal like-for-like transfer from source to DD or DTS, don't expect to hear much difference.
Most reviewers are very vague when reviewing DTS titles and usually mention a "slight difference" or "tigher bass" but I'm sure they write this because they feel they SHOULD rather than because they actually believe it :)
DTS is certainly LOUDER that DD, and high volume is the old salesmens trick when trying to flog the HIFI kit he gets the best commision on.
I'm not saying DTS is all Snake Oil, but I've got loads of DTS titles, and fairly decent kit, and apart from the volume I can't notice a difference.
Your mileage may vary....
PS - Don't believe the higher bitrate argument as most DTS titles only use half bit-rate anyway, and the Dolby Digital decoder is acknowledged to be superior to DTS by those in the know.
PS2 - The only DTS titles that most people say are superior to DD are Jaws and Saving Private Ryan, both of which are by Steven Spielburg who happens to be a part-owner and backer of DTS.
Answers:
Interesting!!!
Im not looking at getting DTS just curious as to what peoples opinions are on this subject
Answers:
I'd generally agree with that, I have difficulty really hearing a huge difference between the two, trouble is sound is so subjective and the various reviews can lead you to think that maybe you're deaf or something.
Admittedly I haven't heard SPR or Jaws DTS but I would definitely say you won't be as chuffed with a DD to DTS upgrade than you were with the DP to DD one.
However, I would respectfully suggest that you would notice significant improvement if you went from the Digitheatre to a real (sorry, not meaning to sound elitist) amp and speaker set-up.
I certainly did notice a great improvement when I traded in my Digitheatre
That said, it is still going to be subjective and your listening environment will play huge part in making your kit sound good or bad, as you know.
Answers:
Originally posted by AndySymbian
You're not going to be particularly impressed.
DTS is certainly LOUDER that DD, and high volume is the old salesmens trick when trying to flog the HIFI kit he gets the best commision on.
Whilst I agree with the majority of Andy's comments I would disagree slightly with the "louder" argument. I have the Prince Rave Un2 the Year 2000 DVD which has both DTS and DD tracks (and you can switch "on the fly" as it were) and the DTS track actually seems quieter.
I think the difference is not one of "louder" but one of dynamic range. DTS seems wider because it is mastered with a wider dynamic range, hence the really loud stuff seems even louder that it does with DD.
As far as quality goes, you can certainly hear a difference betweeen the 2 different tracks, and IMO DTS is better, there is far more transparency in the high frequencies (cymbals, percussion etc) and the kick drum seems to reverberate for longer dying away gently whereas on the DD track it stops abruptly, the encoding deciding that I can't hear it at that level.
In answer to the original question, there is not a huge difference between DD and DTS, at the budget end of the market, there probably is only a tiny difference as the electronics and speakers won't be very revealing.
My advice is to stick with the Digitheatre for now, save up some real money and buy a "better than budget" separates system when you can afford it.
Answers:
Originally posted by lovegroova
My advice is to stick with the Digitheatre for now, save up some real money and buy a "better than budget" separates system when you can afford it.
Sound advice from both Lovegroova and Roy about holding tight and upgrading when more funds are available.
Digitheatres are good value and have much to recommend when used in a small and undemanding environment, but a decent amp/receiver for c.£300-400 will give a far greater improvement than simply moving from DD to DTS.
As far as the DD vs DTS argument goes, I've several discs with both soundtracks on and the only real difference (that I could hear) was with the R1 version of Galaxy Quest. My thinking now is that if a film ships with both DD and DTS soundtracks then great, if it's "only" DD 5.1, then that's more than good enough for me.
Answers:
I have a Yamaha DSP A5 amplifier. It has a setting for Dynamic Range, which by default is set to standard (STD). The other settings are MIN(imum) and MAX(imum). As I understand it the amplifier applies some kind of audio compression which limits the dynamic range of the audio (gotta give the neighbours a break from time to time). However, if I remember correctly, the amp can only perform this operation on Dolby Digital audio streams.
I noticed this yesterday when watching T2:UE in DTS. The first nuclear explosion sequence seemed incredibly loud. Later I watched the same sequence in DD with the amp still set to STD range and it seemed much lower in volume.
I wonder if this might be the reason that DTS seems louder?
Please note, I'm not deriding DTS, merely making an observation. I generally listen to a DTS soundtrack if I have the option...
On a side note, I've just got hold of Maniac which has a DTS ES soundtrack...the mind boggles?
Answers:
I can hear the difference. And that is exactly what it is, a difference. If you like it or not is a personal opinion and that is the factor that may be swayed by others opinions. I don't buy the view that people are fooled into thinking a system is better simply because it is louder. IMO that does not give a great deal of credit to the abilities of those of us in the home cinema fraternity, most of whom know more than your average Comet salesperson! (No offence to any above average Comet salespeople!) I actually looked in some depth to independant comparisons between the 2 and they both have their merits. DD is said to be the cleverer of the 2, preserving much of the encoded information with a remarkably small bitrate. DTS however preserves the information with measureably better fidelity, but as already stated, you may not find the aural differences all that startling.
Answers:
Originally posted by andrew_lee
I have a Yamaha DSP A5 amplifier. It has a setting for Dynamic Range, which by default is set to standard (STD). The other settings are MIN(imum) and MAX(imum). As I understand it the amplifier applies some kind of audio compression which limits the dynamic range of the audio (gotta give the neighbours a break from time to time). However, if I remember correctly, the amp can only perform this operation on Dolby Digital audio streams.
I noticed this yesterday when watching T2:UE in DTS. The first nuclear explosion sequence seemed incredibly loud. Later I watched the same sequence in DD with the amp still set to STD range and it seemed much lower in volume.
I wonder if this might be the reason that DTS seems louder?
Please note, I'm not deriding DTS, merely making an observation. I generally listen to a DTS soundtrack if I have the option...
On a side note, I've just got hold of Maniac which has a DTS ES soundtrack...the mind boggles?
As I understand it, that's right.
Any DR compression on DTS would need to be done in the analogue domain - and there are just too many side effects for this to be worthwhile.
Despite the fact that Dolby's compression ratio puts them at a bitrate disadvantage - the whole design concept of DD is much more elegant and forward thinking than that of the DTS system.
I wouldn't argue that DTS isn't slightly better than DD - I think it is - but only slightly.
The differences are not worth getting over-excited about to be honest.
Sure, in the world of hifi, where the pursuit absolute fidelity is paramount, then DTS would win hands down. It's better in sound quality terms, and that's all there would be to it, even if it's only slightly better.
But in the world of home theatre, where hopefully your mind will be distracted from critical listening by the actual movie on the screen, then DTS' advantage is, IMO, a bit academic.
This is all bearing in mind, that we have only been able to compare those discs which have both DD and DTS tracks, and we aren't sure about the actual mastering quality of each, and many DTS tracks are half bitrate in any case, often to make it fit on the single disc.
If there were a choice of a DVD with a DD track, and one with both DD+DTS, or DTS+PCM, I'd probably go for the DTS disc, if the price were the same or maybe a quid dearer. Five quid dearer, then I'm not too sure. And this is discounting the fact that some extras may be dropped from the disc to make way for the DTS track (personally I'm really not that bothered about extras - but some people are).
If putting a DTS track on, meant that they had to split the movie (either 2 discs or a flipper), then I'd definitely stick to DD, even if the DTS version was full bitrate.
Perhaps DTS should petition the DVD licensing authorities, to allow DVD-Video discs with just a DTS track on (perhaps as special edition DTS versions) - after all Dolby succeeded in doing this for R2.
As a sidenote, I read that in the USA, SPR-DD outsold SPR-DTS by almost 50 to 1 - food for thought. Is this why some R1 discs with DTS, never make it to R2 with a DTS track (although I suspect that DTS would do rather better in Europe - some marketing decisions do seem odd).
Answers:
I'd certainly agree with the comments already made, while dts is good, it is questionable whether it is better. I tend to select the dts soundtrack when I watch a disk with both, simply because it sounds as good, if not better ( probably due to mastering - e.g. Jaws ) than the Dolby Digital one.
However, I am yet to hear a dts/Dolby Digital disk where the soundtracks sound similiar in character - there always seems to be something different about the two tracks that can't just be down to the encoding/decoding - if it was all comparisions would have the same differences. While it's nice to have two different mixes of the same soundtrack I don't think it aids comparisons - which are subjective enough anyway. A recent example of this is on the Orbital DVD 'The Altogether'. Last night I sat down to compare 448Kb/s DD to full bitrate dts ( 1.5Mb/s? ) and who'd have guessed it, the mixes are completely different! Even down to the positioning of the music in the room, dts was rear-focused where DD was much more front biased.....what can you do?
As an aside, some of the best soundtracks, imo, are on disks with just Dolby Digital: Broken Arrow, Apocalypse Now and MI:2 spring to mind.
Simon
Answers:
There's an excellent recent article on the subject over at Home Cinema Choice entitled 'Sound Wars (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/200105SoundWars/200105SoundWars.shtml)' which refers to a bun-fight between Dolby and DTS documented here (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/DolbyVsDTS/Dolby.shtml) (Dolby on DTS) and here (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/articles/techarticles/DolbyVsDTS/DTS.shtml) (DTS rebuttal).
It's all good stuff, but here are a few bits that I found particularly interesting:
Loudness. Dolby Digital includes a dialog normalization feature designed to keep the level of dialogue consistent in all Dolby Digital software. (DTS does not include this feature). The most common setting of dialnorm reduces movie loudness by 4dB.
Dolby Digital soundtracks are sometimes changed during mastering -- some, most notably Saving Private Ryan and other Dreamworks titles, have had portions of the LFE signal redirected to other channels to help improve compatibility for stereo listeners.
Clearly any performance gap that may have existed between Dolby Digital and DTS due to the substantial difference in bitrates is no longer a factor when comparing the two. As 754kb/s DTS soundtracks are demonstrably technically inferior to its 448kb/s Dolby Digital counterparts, we can expect to see a shift away from an unqualified belief that a DTS soundtrack will always be superior. This has been borne out of late by the Region 1 release of Jurassic Park on both DTS and Dolby Digital, upon which the Dolby Digital soundtrack clearly outperforms the DTS alternative.
Most scientifically-conducted blind testing, where the dialogue normalisation feature of Dolby Digital is taken into consideration, concludes that DTS and Dolby Digital do indeed sound 'different', but that listeners cannot categorically state that one is superior to the other. Factor into the argument the differences in source material encountered in the home (DTS and Dolby Digital soundtracks aren't always produced from the same master) and their respective fidelity, and what we're left with is an uncertain and ever-changing conclusion.
Following the experiences and evaluations at Warner Bros, its engineers did not feel that the inclusion of a DTS soundtrack upon any subsequent DVD titles was a worthwhile exercise.
When considering the sonic superiority of either Dolby Digital or DTS, it's also worth noting the sound differences between Region 1 and Region 2 discs in both formats. Dolby Digital, for example, comes in two flavours: 384kbs (the standard UK specification) or the wider 448kbs (the US standard). The UK Dolby Digital track is bandwidth-limited in order to fit also those extra European subtitles. This means more dynamic compression on the UK release discs. Forget listening out for the differences between DTS and Dolby Digital, try spotting the differences between Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital! But to put this in perspective, even the bandwidth limited 384kbs Dolby Digital is more dynamic than the Dolby Digital cinema system which runs at 328kbs.
From my own point of view I would agree with most of what has already been said in this thread. DTS sounds 'different' rather than 'better'. In the light of the Dolby and DTS comments, though, I probably won't bother buying any more DTS only DVDs unless they use the full 1.5Mbps bitrate or are known to contain a significantly better mix.
Answers:
I've only got two DTS titles myself - Gladiator and Seven
On Gladiator there is a very clear 'yes, that sounds better' reaction - but on Seven it sounds exactly the same regardless of it being DTS or DD if I'm being honest with you.
I'd still prefer DTS though, just because I'm a snob ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr Flibble
I've only got two DTS titles myself - Gladiator and Seven
On Gladiator there is a very clear 'yes, that sounds better' reaction - but on Seven it sounds exactly the same regardless of it being DTS or DD if I'm being honest with you.
I'd still prefer DTS though, just because I'm a snob ;)
SNOB!!!!!!!:o
Answers:
Hmmm, handbags at 10 paces!
I've done a listening test on the only disc I have with both DD and DTS on - Gladiator.
I think the surround panning on the opening battle sequences is slightly better on DTS, and also in the quieter moments of the film, the DTS tarck seems ever so slightly more "atmospheric".
Nothing to get excited over though - and otherwise there's little appreciable difference IMO.
All this not withstanding the stuff about master sourcing etc etc.
I assume that Gladiator is a half bitrate DTS track - I think it's certainly not inferior to DD (although DR compression capability for late night viewing is something I personally find very handy with DD), but then it's hardly any superior either.
Perhaps a full bitrate track would be better, but without being able to listen to it, I couldn't say!
What I would like to see on a disc now, is a 24bit/96kHz PCM, Dolby Surround encoded stereo track, which could then be fed into a DPL2 decoder.
Free of any form of compression, it would be interesting to see how it compared.
Answers:
Originally posted by MikeK
What I would like to see on a disc now, is a 24bit/96kHz PCM, Dolby Surround encoded stereo track, which could then be fed into a DPL2 decoder.
Free of any form of compression, it would be interesting to see how it compared.
Do the surrounds in DPL2 cover the full frequency range, or are they limited to 8Khz as in ordinary DPL? If that is the case then it would clearly be inferior to DD or DTS, never mind leakage across the channels as per DPL.
Answers:
Originally posted by lovegroova
Do the surrounds in DPL2 cover the full frequency range, or are they limited to 8Khz as in ordinary DPL? If that is the case then it would clearly be inferior to DD or DTS, never mind leakage across the channels as per DPL.
The rears in DPL2 are full range stereo.
Quite how they've managed stereo from a mono signal, I don't know - so I'd read pseudo stereo for that. The channel seperation is also improved, as is effects panning and direction
I had a demo from VHS tapes, and it was quite impressive (not as good as 5.1 though).
Would just like to see how good it gets in comparison to DD/DTS given a very high quality feed (far higher than DD/DTS)
Answers:
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on this subject...
In my opinion there is a definate noticable difference between DD and DTS. As people have already mentioned the sounds are louder and are noticably more accurate and more defined than DD. The biggest difference for me when using DTS is the output from the rear speakers. You hear SO MUCH more from the rears than you do when listening to DD.
Play the shootout sequence at the start of Hannibal and listen to how you can hear bullets flying past your head from the rear speakers - I can't hear nowhere near as much in DD. Also another good test is the battle scene at the start of Gladiator - again you can hear the arrows flying past your head with astounding accuracy, its a different story for me in DD.
Bye.
Answers:
I've always taken DTS to be not necessarily better, but just a different audio mix. I think that's clearly demonstrated by HBK757's post above.
Still, I'd always take a DTS mix over a DD one, if only for the placebo effect. :p
Answers:
I used to be of the opinion that DTS was more musical sounding and better at revealing detail in soundtracks with a lot going on but of late i've heard some very impressive dolby digital soundtracks and to be honest I think it's all down to the skill of the soundtrack engineer who creates the final mix.
IMHO I would guess that it's easier to master a DTS track to sound impressive but DD requires a higher class of sound engineer to get the same performance out of the DD engine. To back this up, i've noticed that quite a few of my newer DD disks seem to be of higher audio quality than titles from a year or so back.
On balance I still tend to consider DTS has the advantage in the real world but I think the difference is narrowing as the DD soundtrack engineers master the system.
For the record, the most musical sounding soundtrack in DD that I can think of offhand is probably on the R2 release of the Pierce Brosnan version of The Thomas Crown Affair. One sweet sounding DD5.1 soundtrack. The brand new release of Enemy At The Gates R1 also has a very active and punchy DD5.1 soundtrack.
All subjective and based on personal listening preferences so I guess this one will run and run. :)
Answers:
Originally posted by Ron Hill
I used to be of the opinion that DTS was more musical sounding and better at revealing detail in soundtracks with a lot going on but of late i've heard some very impressive dolby digital soundtracks and to be honest I think it's all down to the skill of the soundtrack engineer who creates the final mix.
IMHO I would guess that it's easier to master a DTS track to sound impressive but DD requires a higher class of sound engineer to get the same performance out of the DD engine. To back this up, i've noticed that quite a few of my newer DD disks seem to be of higher audio quality than titles from a year or so back.
On balance I still tend to consider DTS has the advantage in the real world but I think the difference is narrowing as the DD soundtrack engineers master the system.
For the record, the most musical sounding soundtrack in DD that I can think of offhand is probably on the R2 release of the Pierce Brosnan version of The Thomas Crown Affair. One sweet sounding DD5.1 soundtrack. The brand new release of Enemy At The Gates R1 also has a very active and punchy DD5.1 soundtrack.
All subjective and based on personal listening preferences so I guess this one will run and run. :)
As well as the skill of the sound engineer (or whatever the guy who creates the DD track calls himself), along with improvements made in the encoder devices themselves, this illustrates one of the advantages of the Dolby system (and why it's said to be "cleverer")
Dolby can include code in the actual bitstream which tells the decoder how to decode the datastream - essentially on-the-fly backwards compatible upgrades.
I don't have the details on this (perhaps it's confidential) but AFAIK, a DTS decoder can't do this, as it was never designed to be able to.
Answers:
I am about to buy this DVD, but I am really confused which one to get since according to amazon.com, the DTS feature does not inclued the special featurette:
"Editor's Note
Because the DTS data stream demands more storage capacity on the DVD format, the DTS edition of Saving Private Ryan does not include the behind-the-scenes documentary featurette that is included on the Dolby Digital 5.1 channel edition. Those interested in purchasing the DTS edition should be aware that this additional feature was necessarily sacrificed to accommodate the DTS soundtrack."
Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Answers:
Amazon is quite correct. The DTS version is missing the featurette and the DD5.1 track. AFAIK the DTS version is only available in R1.
Note that it is mandatory to mention the DTS version of Saving Private Ryan in any DD vs. DTS debate. :D Whether the DTS version is actually any better than the DD5.1 version is even harder to judge than usual because very few people own both DVDs!
Answers:
Well, I finally bit the bullet and got the DD version.
As WHY DreamWorks didn't include BOTH versions (as in Gladiator which is a benchmark of DVDs) on their release it is beyond me.
1 2