# Is DTS important?



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

I just bought an inexpensive DVD player which cleans up a lot of the artifacts that were bothering me (esp in menus, documentaries, etc.). It wasn't rated in the DVD Benchmark, but passed my own informal tests (some of them taken from the benchmark).

However, when trying to play Flight of the Phoenix last night- I turned on DTS... and... *nothing*. My old artifact-prone DVD player did play DTS.

I read through the specs and it doesn't mention DTS. Models above and below it in the manufacturer's lineup do have DTS, so I don't know why this one was left out.

But, my question is- since I'm going Blu-Ray in the future- do I really care that I don't get DTS?


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

If a movie is in DTS, I'll always choose it.

Check out the lightning scene in War of the World in DD and then DTS. I was testing and watching it in DD on accident. I came away thinking it was sounding kinda flat and disappointing. Then I realized my mistake and flipped to DTS and it comes to life! I've heard people say that DTS is just a few dB hotter than DD, and I would tend to agree. Still, if I just turn it on an listen at whatever volume, I think I can hear a distinct difference -- including better surround "presence" and better dynamics. I'd never had DTS until this year, and I'm glad I have it now.

Too bad it's rather limited.

-- Otto


----------



## Ayreonaut (Apr 26, 2006)

There are audible differences but its not night and day.

Dolby wrote a paper about why there are differences and they say it has nothing to do with the codecs, but instead there are other changes made to the soundtracks. (DTS hotly debates their claims.)

1. Dolby claims that they use a feature called 'diaglogue normalization' which usually reduces overall volume by 3dB. Since DTS does not use 'normalization', the DTS material may sound more dynamic to listeners.

2. Dolby claims that differences listeners notice in sound quality are down to changes made to the digital master, rather than differences in codec efficiency between DD and DTS. 

3. Dolby claims differences between DD and DTS material may also be explained by remixes of the source material. Some DTS ES versions were remixed to add the extra discrete channel.

article


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2006)

Hi All,
I always use DTS when available. It was my understanding that the DTS signal uses a different compression algorithm and is nowhere near as compressed as DD. So, as a result, DTS sound is more dynamic, as it contains more information.

A good example of this is the movie Pitch Black with Vin Diesel. If you watch the scene when the space ship crashes in DD, and then DTS, you will notice a definate difference ie: The DTS track has more spatial information and more seems to be happening on the audio level regardless of volume.

This is a direct quote from a DTS Wiki (link below)

One advantage of DTS (for DVDs) is that it has a much higher bitrate than equivalent Dolby tracks. DTS 5.1 typically uses 768-1536 kbit/s (overall), while Dolby 5.1 uses 384-448 kbit/s. Proponents claim these extra bits give higher fidelity and a greater dynamic range, providing richer and more life-like sound. They also claim that DTS is louder and has less hiss at the same volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theatre_System

Of course I could be wrong.:scratch:


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2006)

YES!! If one can't hear the difference in DD and dts, one must be deaf.. :laugh: It's been some time since I've checked the difference so I put Hero in the 'ol Sony and selected the dd track and then the dts track. Not only is dts louder, there is noticebly less hiss, more definition and I could hear things that I couldn't hear with the dd track.


----------



## Josuah (Apr 26, 2006)

Receivers and pre-pros should account for the 3dB difference between DD and DTS. I remember my Yamaha RX-V1400 would always show a -3dB on the display panel when I used DTS to account for the difference. Otherwise, in general, people think the same thing is better if the only difference is volume. Maybe some processors aren't doing this.

The few instances where I have read anecdotes of double-blind comparisons between DD and DTS indicate the listener could not tell the difference between DD and DTS. If you've got a friend, you owe it to yourself to conduct a double-blind comparison if you really think DTS is that much better. The only movie where I can really say there's a significant difference is in Appleseed, and that's because it seems they messed up the DTS center channel level during the mixing.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2006)

I'll take the challenge. Not only will I do it with a friend but my husband and my grandmother. She'll be over tonight for a going away dinner for the old man and I'll do a blind test tonight, I'd like to see the results myself.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 19, 2006)

I always go for DTS - it's a few years since I did an AB, but it always sounded significantly more dynamic particularly with for concert DVD's than DD.


----------



## Josuah (Apr 26, 2006)

It occurred to me, if the audio information is +3dB on DTS versus DD, that would obviously explain a higher SPL on DTS with the same amount of background noise (due to your gear, not the audio track). If you are playing at SPL levels such that +3dB on your receiver will make the noise audible (when no audio is playing back).


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

I think that DTS is a must have as a choice - but not necc the end all solution for all DVDs. The mix could sometimes be better on the Dolby soundtrack, although most report a better film audio mix being done on the DTS track (to satisfy those picky users with better audio systems who bother to select the non-default DTS option on the disc menu). BTW it is not necc to have it in the player if your AVR supports it. Just set the player to bitstream and let the AVR fed by a coax or toslink S/PDIF connection decode it. IMHO DTS is more of a AVR/Pre-Pro requirement

I've read Dolby's and DTS's material describing their codecs and personally I like the DTS approach better. Throwing higher clock sample rates at the problem means less tricky compression tricks needed. IIRC Dolby Digital tops out at 640 kbps whereas DTS goes to 1509 kbps.

Bob


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

bobgpsr said:


> Just set the player to bitstream and let the AVR fed by a coax or toslink S/PDIF connection decode it. IMHO DTS is more of a AVR/Pre-Pro requirement
> 
> Bob


Really? Let me dig through the menus and try that...


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

Yes. I checked the equip that you posted you use. Your Pioneer VSXD814 supports DTS decode. And I never heard of any DVD player that does not have the ability to choose between PCM or bitstream (data) output.

Bob


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

The follow information is based purely on hearsay, gobbledygook and similar detritus..

My understanding is that DD is what the director/sound engineer/etc want as the official sound mixing for the movie/DVD. The DTS tracks are usually created without all of the input from the people listed and are usually created to make the sound more "dramatic".

I haven't done an A/B comparison for a long time to see where the differences are, but I will choose DTS when the mood strikes me.. particularly when watching some action flick.

For straight sound, my understanding is that the two compression schemes are pretty identical.

JCD


----------



## russ.will (May 10, 2006)

Aside from all the other possibly subjective influences, speech is definitely clearer to my ears via DTS. I used to try both soundtracks and then note which sounded better, again to my ears, but found after a while that I either prefered DTS or found no difference. I never prefered the DD soundtrack so now I always select DTS if it's available.

Ayreonaut mentions the dialogue normalisation being a DD feature, but even when I select DTS my 3806 briefly displays the dialogue offset (usually -2 to -4dB) as the full multichannel mix cuts in from the DD 2.0 used during the menus.

The two bottom PDFs here make interesting, if technical reading from when Dolby puplished it's "findings" on DTS. It would appear to refute JCDs understanding as regards to the original directors/sound engineers/etc input or not in the DTS mastering process. I am not saying this is any more or less true than anything Dolby might say though.

Russell


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

I was trying to remember where I received the information I presented above.. took me a while to remember, but it was located in this thread on another forum. Scroll down to the response by "Soundhound". As a short bio, he's a sound engineer for (I believe) both movies and music. And everything he's posted that I've read has been pretty impressive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Anyway, as a completely disinterested party, I've adopted his opinion into my audio belief system.  

All that being said, I will still pick the DTS soundtrack over DD sometimes. Usually I don't really care one way or the other though. As for equipment, all things being equal, I'd pick one with both DD and DTS over one with just DD. I'd even pay a little bit more.. I don't know how much more though. 

JCD


----------



## russ.will (May 10, 2006)

JCD said:


> All that being said, I will still pick the DTS soundtrack over DD sometimes. Usually I don't really care one way or the other though. As for equipment, all things being equal, I'd pick one with both DD and DTS over one with just DD. I'd even pay a little bit more.. I don't know how much more though.
> 
> JCD


You and me both. For some obscure reason, R2 disks don't always get the DTS soundtrack, so I buy the R1 where this is the case. After the earlier release times of some DVDs in the States, this goes a long way to explaining the popularity of multiregion DVD players in Europe.

Regardless of Soundhounds assertions, no amount of any goosing or boosting makes Gandalf sound clear as he enters the minds of Moria when using DD. DTS reduces the sibilance and everthing is crystal. The opening restaurant sequence in the 1500th aniversary/directors cut/weird box/peoples choice/ blessed by the Pope edition of Pulp Fiction benefits exactly the same way. If I weren't drunk, I'd remember others.

DTS all the way for me. It could be, as I've suddenly gone all introspective, that my preference for DTS over DD is a simple manifestation of the same personality flaw that made me buy a MAC rather than a PC, an Aprilia rather than a Ducati, an Alfa Romeo rather than a Ford, an Olympus rather than a Canon (shudders!), Uma Thurman rather than Charlize Theron. Hang on - I didn't buy that last one, but you get the drift. I like the underdog, especially where I appreciate a certain quality that can overide all other rational considerations. Weirdo?

Russell


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

Aprilia :T 

(2000.5 Mille)

I'm still trying to get my DVD player to passthrough the DTS signal.


----------



## JimP (May 18, 2006)

toecheese said:


> Aprilia :T
> 
> (2000.5 Mille)
> 
> I'm still trying to get my DVD player to passthrough the DTS signal.


Things to check. 

You have selected the DTS track from the DVD and have tried multiple DVDs to be sure that something isn't amiss on one DVD.

Audio is connected with either coax or optical. Your audio isn't hooked up with 5 analog cables.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

russ.will said:


> Regardless of Soundhounds assertions, no amount of any goosing or boosting makes Gandalf sound clear as he enters the minds of Moria when using DD. DTS reduces the sibilance and everthing is crystal.


I'll have to check that one out.. like I said, I haven't done any a/b comparisons for quite some time.

And yeah, I root for the underdog too.. must be some sort of instinctual thing.

JCD


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

JimP said:


> Things to check.
> 
> You have selected the DTS track from the DVD and have tried multiple DVDs to be sure that something isn't amiss on one DVD.
> 
> Audio is connected with either coax or optical. Your audio isn't hooked up with 5 analog cables.


Yes, using the coax out. The audio options on my Philips player are 'None', 'All' and 'PCM Only'. None of them let me use DTS. And yes, I've tried different DVDs.

Oh well- I'll just go without until someone (Oppo?) comes out with an upconverting component player that is artifact-free- and supports DTS. :dontknow:


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

toecheese said:


> ...The audio options on my Philips player are 'None', 'All' and 'PCM Only'...


I would set it to 'All'. And then find/borrow the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" DTS encoded CD. It is DTS only so no DVD menu choice required.

Bob


----------



## kingkip (Apr 20, 2006)

I will almost always choose DTS as I think the mix usually sounds better. Maybe it has to do with the bitrate or compression algorithms or magic, I don't know. I think more care is put in to the DTS mixes and that to me sounds better.


----------



## khellandros66 (Jun 7, 2006)

There are times when DTS is too much. Great examples are WOTW and Haunting. Both of these movies are capable of harming your equipment, especially if you are un-aware of its capabilities. 

~Bob


----------



## GregBe (Apr 20, 2006)

I always choose DTS when given the choice, but if it were me, and I had receiver with DD that had all of the features I wanted, I wouldn't upgrade for DTS alone. DD does an amazing job, and there are fewer and fewer titles where DTS sounds a ton better than DD. If there are other features in a receiver that I wanted right now, and was upgrading anyway, obviously get one that is DTS capable (which should be all of them).


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

> I was trying to remember where I received the information I presented above.. took me a while to remember, but it was located in this thread on another forum. Scroll down to the response by "Soundhound". As a short bio, he's a sound engineer for (I believe) both movies and music. And everything he's posted that I've read has been pretty impressive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Anyway, as a completely disinterested party, I've adopted his opinion into my audio belief system


While it is not my place to challenge anyone's hearing, I would say that Soundhound has his opinion, but that opinion is debateable. 

At the annual convention of Surround 2001 I believe, a double blind test was done not to tell which codec was better, but do they sound different, and are the differences audible and identifiable. From what I remember over 75% of the listeners couldn't tell which was which, but they did note differences in what they heard. 

As far as Dolby's white paper goes, what trash and they knew it too. I am a freelance sound designer/audio engineer. At the time that paper was released, my studio had just purchased a Dts encoder. The distortion a 1khz that Dolby mentions in the white paper, we could find no trace of it in our encoder/decoder set. The white paper released to the public mentioned no equipment, the studio the test was conducted at (it turns out it was Warner studios), the soundtracks that were tested, and who the listeners were. Turning out a white paper without this information destroys its credibility. As a person who works inside the Hollywood studio machine, one has to be aware of the alliances that are developed within the community. Most of us know of the relationship between Dolby and the various studio's, so to see Warner conspiring with Dolby to discredit Dts, I saw a act of disperation on their part because of all the attention that Dts was getting at the time. 

Where their different masters used in the past for Dolby and Dts encoding? Most certainly, at that time. However whatever differences their were between how Dolby soundtracks were encoded (not mixed) and how Dts did their remixes for encoding at Dts is really insignificant today, as it is not done that way anymore. Any comparison made between Dolby and Dts in the absence of the original printmaster source is pretty useless. However, there are some DVD's that have both formats on them were the same master was used to encode both, no alterations were made to either format, and both formats were encoded at their highest bitrates, and their was no dialog nomalization used in the Dolby encoding. Those DVD's are Twister special edition, and the Lethal Weapon Series. These DVD's represent the best way for consumers to compare each format because we know more about how the soundtracks were handled.

Every person I have come across who claims they could hear no difference between the two formats had some acoustical issues within their listening room. No control of early and late arriving reflections will spoil any comparison. Room resonaces will also be a big problem in a comparison. Since most folks think more about the equipment they purchase than the room it is going in, it is pretty difficult to make a comparison in most listening rooms. 

Comparing the common bitrate of Dts (754kbps) versus Dolby's common bitrate (448kbps) IMO is a unfair comparison. Dts at 754kbps is a compromised bitrate designed just to get the format on DVD. A more fair comparison would be Dts at 1509kbps to Dolby at 640kbps. That to me is a fair comparison. 

I have worked with both formats professional encoders and decoders. One of the common differences I found between the two formats is the LFE channel, and the soundfield of the soundtracks. Dts tends to have a tighter bass response which can often lead to the impression of deeper bass. It also tends to create a more coherent soundfield, smoother pans, better timbre and tonal characteristics than Dolby. Dolby digital does a amazing job of making encoded signals sound pretty good, especially considering the amount of bit reduction it does. 

In the end, it really boils down to a preference that works on your particular system, and with your ears. I personally and professionally prefer Dts because it has the least amount of degredation to the signal after encoding, and it sounds closer to the master after encoding. 

Lastly, since Dts does not use dialog normalization during encoding, my logic would say that it would actually be the same volume as the master (at least that has been my experience). Dialog normalization is not used in soundtrack creation, so its use would cause it to be louder or softer than the master it was encoded from. 

How is that for my first post!


----------



## Phil M (Apr 19, 2006)

Welcome to the forum, and yes entering with a bang.

The first few concert DVD's I listened to sounded more dynamic with DTS, and as a consequence I just instinctively choose DTS over DD if the disc allows the option. I never read any posts, or read papers, comparing the two formats at the time so it was purely based on my subjective listening. I've never considered doing an AB since this time, and I've probably emerged into a DTS supporter. Like similar forum members part of the motivation is supporting the underdog, but its encouraging to see that an industry professional supports DTS also for the right technical and business reasons.


----------



## russ.will (May 10, 2006)

Sir Terrence said:


> How is that for my first post!


Ample and informative.

Russell


----------



## Tommy (Apr 20, 2006)

khellandros66 said:


> There are times when DTS is too much. Great examples are WOTW and Haunting. Both of these movies are capable of harming your equipment, especially if you are un-aware of its capabilities.
> 
> ~Bob


Can you elobarate on that, "harming your equipment"?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

They will both test your sub capabilities... if your subs are not up to par it is very possible you could damage them.


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

From my first hand experiences, switching between DD and DTS will yield some differences. Most notably for WOTW, where the DTS track is way more involving in the areas of LFE as well as information being sent to the surrounds. Would I be disappointed without DTS? Probably not... DTS wont make or break a system. By my nature I favor situations where there are options, so yeah it is cool IMO to have DTS as an alternative but I definitely wouldn't lose any sleep over not having DTS. There are many DD encoded movies with awesome soundtracks...Like The Incredibles for 1. my 02.


----------



## Steve Williamson (May 11, 2006)

Personally I prefer DTS, however I have now resorted to using my Xbox360 as my DVD player and although I use the Pioneer 814 mentioned before, the Xbox will not pass the DTS encoding to the receiver  I will probably reinstate my Pioneer DVD player for the time being and just use the XB for TV distribution.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

I always consider DTS to be a plus when buying DVDs. I would definitely want my DVD player to process DTS and would get a new one if it didn't.


----------



## russ.will (May 10, 2006)

Sir Terrence said:


> How is that for my first post!


 Comprehensive!

So to recap, you prefer DTS too?

I obviously don't have your proffessional knowledge on the subject, so it tends to boil down to such criteria as, which format renders mumbling/whispering better/which format makes my windows rattle more. DTS for me all the way. Or to put it another way, now, when I drop a new disc in the tray, I select the DTS soundtrack automatically.

It is perhaps remiss on my part, but having done the subjective comparisons a few times some while ago, I always came to the same conclusion. Now, I prefer to watch a new film as soon as I get it and rightly or wrongly, go with what I know and select DTS.

While you're about it. What discs do contain the full bitrate sound tracks and with the same master possibly? Any of the Superbit stuff for example? I buy them for their picture quality (MIB II:hail: ) but the soundtracks have always impressed.


Russell


----------



## MACCA350 (Apr 25, 2006)

This may be of interest, http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp

From the article:


> Any attempt to compare the domestic versions of Dolby Digital and DTS with one another is extremely difficult due to one major technical difference. The domestic version of Dolby Digital incorporates a feature, called 'dialog normalization', designed to maintain a consistent centre-channel volume from all Dolby Digital sources. The dialog normalization system is designed to ensure that the average centre-channel volume is always between -25 and -31dBFS (decibels below digital full-scale), regardless of source. As a result, if dialogue is recorded at a higher volume, the Dolby Digital decoder automatically attenuates the volume of all channels to the level at which the centre-channel outputs dialogue at the set 'dialnorm' level (usually -31dBFS for Dolby Digital on DVD). Most movies' centre-channels are recorded at -27dBFS, which results in an overall lowering of 4dB in all channels. Movies can be recorded at anything from -23dBFS (e.g. 'Wild Things') to -31dBFS (e.g. 'Air Force One', non-SuperBit and 'Twister: SE'), resulting in nominal overall volume attenuation of up to 8dB ('Wild Things') or more. All channels maintain their correct relative balance, so no detrimental sonic effects can be attributed to the dialnorm process. But, because the result can be up to an 8dB reduction in volume, there is no easy way to compare DTS and Dolby Digital versions of a film's soundtrack. The overall volume of the DTS version may be 8dB or more higher than the Dolby Digital soundtrack, making direct comparisons nearly impossible. As dialnorm is constantly variable in 1dB increments, the exact difference in overall volume between Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks often varies from film to film.
> 
> Any argument for or against a particular system must be based on competing coding schemas. DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'. An apt analogy is that of the Porsche and the Corvette: the Corvette has a powerful V8, while the Porsche has a smaller engine but is turbo-charged. Both cars use very different power sources, yet both are extremely effective at performing their desired functions. Undoubtedly there will be those who argue for one system over another, but any such argument must be based on individual preference rather than scientific theory. There are no technically valid grounds for believing either audio system is inherently better sounding than the other.



cheers


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2006)

MACCA350 said:


> This may be of interest, http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp
> 
> From the article:
> 
> ...




War of the Worlds DD uses a DIALNORM value of -23, so it plays back at 8 dB (-31 - (-23) = -8) lower than the DTS version. So, you have to lower the DTS version by 8 dB to make a comparison of the two versions.

I can hardly tell the difference between the two versions once I reset the MV control to compensate for DIALNORM.

My receiver reads out the DD DIALNORM value, so the above numbers are correct!


----------



## eddthompson (Aug 19, 2006)

i personaly think its more down to the mix, gladiator is a good one for this i seem to recall, the scenes in the caravan the backround noise is definately more pronounced (this is going from memory)

is for being more dynamic etc, never realy noticed, though it has to be said, my jurasic park dts laser disc is still one of my reference sound discs, its superb.



edd


----------



## MACCA350 (Apr 25, 2006)

J_Palmer_Cass said:


> War of the Worlds DD uses a DIALNORM value of -23, so it plays back at 8 dB (-31 - (-23) = -8) lower than the DTS version. So, you have to lower the DTS version by 8 dB to make a comparison of the two versions.
> 
> I can hardly tell the difference between the two versions once I reset the MV control to compensate for DIALNORM.
> 
> My receiver reads out the DD DIALNORM value, so the above numbers are correct!


Anyone who has the Denon 3805 can press the 'ON SCREEN' button on the remote to see the DIALNORM offset value. They also need to make sure the Dynamic Range Compression feature for DD tracks is not engaged. 

I found that even after compensating for the Dialog Norm offset the DTS track's bass was still higher SPL then the DD version, I had to turn the receivers sub vol down by a further 7db just to get bass about the same. This proved, to me that DTS plays with the sound a bit, they must think people prefer a hotter bass line then what the mixer intended.

cheers


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

With my recent experiences regarding the loss of dynamics due to DD stereo downmixing, i'll have to change my previous opinion on this issue. DTS for people like me who are using less than 5.1 speakers is our only ticket to reaching the highest level of dynamics possible...Overall, its better to have more options to choose from, especially when your systen isn't equipped to take advantage of true DD 5.1.


----------



## Matteo (Jul 12, 2006)

All I can say is DTS rocks. The new formats are coming out, HD DVD and Blue Ray, and we will be getting almost 20 times the bitrate transfer rates. DTS Master should sound exactly the way the studio produced it. No loss. MMM. All we need now is the receives/pres to handle the signal.
Roly


----------



## MACCA350 (Apr 25, 2006)

rolyasm said:


> All I can say is DTS rocks. The new formats are coming out, HD DVD and Blue Ray, and we will be getting almost 20 times the bitrate transfer rates. DTS Master should sound exactly the way the studio produced it. No loss. MMM. All we need now is the receives/pres to handle the signal.
> Roly


HD-DVD owners have been using Dolby TrueHD for a while, which is a lossless format and bit for bit identical to the studio masters and uses less space then DTS Master I believe.

cheers


----------



## khellandros66 (Jun 7, 2006)

DTS is a great thing, because it presented Dolby with a problem.. To compete Dolby needed something that at the time was superior to Pro Logic and Dolby Surround. DTS started the snowball that is the avalanche that now is 6.1/7.1 Bit for Bit to the original recordings.

~Bob


----------



## toecheese (May 3, 2006)

Are there actual 6.1/7.1 sources? When wiring my HT, I set it up for 7.1, but I thought everything was simulated?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Someone else mentioned in another thread that Star Wars and LOTR both had rear information. I do not know if it's true and/or if it's one or two channels. I'm thinking there are some out there and these are a couple of them, but again, can't guarantee it. Maybe someone else can.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Gladiator had a DTS 6.1 ES audio track.

Also found this aritcle one DTS 6.1 ES and Dolby EX.

JCD


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

toecheese said:


> Are there actual 6.1/7.1 sources? When wiring my HT, I set it up for 7.1, but I thought everything was simulated?


The EX & ES 6.1 tracks can at a minimum matrix the back channel audio info into the side surround channels. This matrixed info can be recovered and set to the back surrounds using DD PLIIx or the dts/neo 6.1 equiv. Not "simulated".

Bob


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2006)

Sorry to get in late on this thread but here's my two cents anyways....

I've always preferred DTS, from my original HTIB setup to my current separates system. It just seems to sound richer and better given the shortcomings of my room (two open archways, wife opposed to acoustic panels etc...)

Later ...


----------



## mdrums (Jan 1, 2007)

I usually use DTS too but have found that when viewing concert DVD's Dolby Digital usually has a more real soundstage. Check out The Eagles Hell Freezes DVD and just listen to the bass guitar lines between DTS and DD. Major difference. Also on Hotel Cali DTS places the shaker in the rear speakers...the shaker is NOT in the audience!


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Ayreonaut said:


> There are audible differences but its not night and day.
> 
> Dolby wrote a paper about why there are differences and they say it has nothing to do with the codecs, but instead there are other changes made to the soundtracks. (DTS hotly debates their claims.)
> 
> ...


One problem with listening to what dolby claims, is that its a claim with a bias attached, and no scientific support. 

First, Dts has done numerous double blind testing with listeners not attached to Dts itself. Tom Jung, Brad Miller, and Gary Reber all participated in double blind testing of both Dts and DD encoder/decoder setups. They found that Dts sounded better than DD even at low bitrates such as 384kbps.

I have encoded hundreds of hours of both Dts and DD over the last 10 years or so, and I can tell you straight out of each professional encoder/decoder combination that Dts most certainly sounds better than DD. That is just my word however.

Dolby cannot explain why when indentical masters are used for both formats, why Dts continues to get the nod from reviewers over and over again. 

When the volume levels are equaled as most reviewers do, they still prefer Dts tracks over DD.

There is a reason that Dts has hundreds of recordings exclusively using their codec, and Dolby has had to piggyback on DVD-A titles as an alternate soundtrack. Before DVD-A

Dolby will not explain why they wouldn't participate in double blind testing using a third uninterested party. 

It was widely known that Dolby's paper on Dts was a joke. There were some basic protocols that Dolby did not follow in their white paper, and no other studio(aside from Warner for which they were in cahoots with) has been able to either repeat their results. For instance, they never disclosed what studio the test was done. I later found out that it was done at Warner studio's(a non Dts supporter and Dts detractor). They never reported what material was used for the listening tests, or who the listeners where. I later found out it was Warner's engineering staff who were very biased against Dts, and very pro Dolby. They never even listed the equipment used. This lack of disclosure completely invalidates their white paper, which by the way proclaimed that DD sounded better than Dts at all bitrates. What a joke!:rofl: 

Keep in mind, a remix that moves left/right surround information to the center rear does not affect fidelity. It just changes the effects position. So to use that excuse as a reason someone elses codec is reported to sound better is empty air. 



> I usually use DTS too but have found that when viewing concert DVD's Dolby Digital usually has a more real soundstage. Check out The Eagles Hell Freezes DVD and just listen to the bass guitar lines between DTS and DD. Major difference. Also on Hotel Cali DTS places the shaker in the rear speakers...the shaker is NOT in the audience!


Shaker in the rear speakers is not a codec issue, its a mixing issue. 



> The EX & ES 6.1 tracks can at a minimum matrix the back channel audio info into the side surround channels. This matrixed info can be recovered and set to the back surrounds using DD PLIIx or the dts/neo 6.1 equiv. Not "simulated".


Any information that is reported as 7.1 is simulated. DD EX is not a 6.1 format, it is officially a 5.1+1 format. In order to be a 6.1 format, it must have 6 discrete main channels.


----------



## Jack Gilvey (May 8, 2006)

Interestingly enough, when HD DVD players downsample their hi resolution Dolby True HD and DD+ tracks for transmission over SPDIF (for those without HDMI audio), they convert them to a DTS bitstream due to its higher bandwidth. Kinda funny...


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Just in case the point hasn't been recognized yet, as Exocer mentioned, if you aren using a phantom center channel as opposed to a discrete center speaker, DTS will sound a LOT better. This is because of dynamic range compression that takes place when DD is played back on a system with less than five speakers. This, I believe, accounts for most comments that claim HUGE differences in sound quality.

I think you can then eliminate another chunk of big differences when different mixes are being used - The Haunting comes to mind. Then you also have the Dialnorm issue that has been talked about, that probably accounts for another chunk. 

Working against DTS is the fact that some early processors did not boost the LFE channel 10db like they should have, and most people wouldn't have bothered to or didn't have the means to check solely the output of a DTS LFE channel as opposed to the subwoofer level back then. That probably accounts for a chunk who prefer DD. 

Personally, I'll always go for DTS due to the chance of having a sweetened mix and the higher bitrates, though I haven't done any blind listening tests. I'm a big fan of blind listening tests, but who's to say my results would be applicable to all movies that offer both DD and DTS? They wouldn't, the mixes and circumstances may vary. And I'm not going to test old movies and keep a log of which format sounds better for each disc as well as watching all new movies I get back to back, once in DD and once in DTS to catalog them too :sarcastic: Additionally, I downmix all my multichannel music discs to 2.1, and DTS is definitely the better option in those cases due to the DD dynamic range compression issue. So whether it really sounds better or not, DTS wins me over.


----------

