i seen this debate all over the place, just like most hear have, and even after people being educated about a different master being used, they still think dts is better, well now the argument has switch to which has a "better" mix, something we don't have control of.
the best thing i could think of right now is:
does watching an older B&W film that was colorized make the film better, NO. it alter the way you perceive the film.
Let pretend for a minute far Dolby digital does change the sound and does collapse the sound field
REMEMBER, WERE PRETENDING RIGHT NOW
if your a director you would more than likely preview the film with the uncompressed audio master, you would also probably go over the film multiple times to see if it's right. your film is about to be released on DVD, you want the most you can afford to goto the video on the Disc, so you opt for an Dolby Digital 448kbps 5.1 track. now if you have preview the film numerous times scene by scene, you would notice a difference in the tinniest thing right? Would you notice the change in the audio, you probably would, so why is it that Dolby Digital is the dominate audio format on DVD, not be cause it's mandatory, because when the mastering is done properly you do not need dts.
Quote:
|
DTS is technically the winner in the DTS vs. DD war
|
how so, i can tell you why Dolby digital is technically the winner and dts is not