The Battlefield: Dolby Digital vs dts (Official thread)

[MtViewGuy88]

Folks,

I think in terms of Dolby Digital versus DTS, the only way to really find out is to try multiple disc sets.

For example, I have Atlantis: The Lost Empire Collector's Edition and the Extended Edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, both sets sporting Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks. Recently, my brother got the Logitech Z-680 surround-sound speaker set to complement his 61" Sony projection TV, a speaker set that has THX certification and a decoder for both Dolby Digital and DTS digital signals from SPDIF and coaxial sources.

Playing the two DVD sets on my brother's setup using the SPDIF connection from a Pioneer DV-434 player, I noticed the following:

Atlantis sounded better in Dolby Digital, mostly because rear channels sounded a bit clearer.

The Fellowship of the Ring sounded somewhat better in DTS, mostly because it doesn't have the overwhelming bass of the Dolby Digital track.

I've played both Star Wars prequels on my brother's setup and the Dolby Digital EX soundtrack (that's the only one available on the discs) are superb with excellent clarity on all channels. This indicates the sound engineers on these two discs know how to eek out the best sound quality out of Dolby Digital.

In short, if the sound mastering engineers on the DVD know how each sound encoding scheme works, both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks on the same DVD should sound almost exactly the same.

[MJZ]

I have to say of the all the DD and DTS comparisons I've made, I prefer the DTS tracks (based on my own set up though). Saving Private Ryan opening beach scene is amazing in DTS.

The thing that's ashame though is sometime to have DTS, extras have to be sacrificed.

Some films seem to pointlessly have DTS like Region 2 American Pie 2. What is the point of that? And then films like The Matrix which would clearly kick a$$ in DTS don't get it (yet?).

[tomdkat]

There are some additional comments here.

Peace....

[mighty mint]

* Sigh *
Yes tomdkat, you were right. After fine tuning my system and reviewing movies for the last 3 months...DTS is louder. Even so...IT KICKS ASS! There really should be no debate...I can't believe that another thread has been started on this topic.

[tomdkat]

Originally posted by mighty mint
* Sigh *

Why the sigh?

I can't believe that another thread has been started on this topic.

Well, sometimes people don't look through all of the forums or use the search feature before posting. That's why we mods to try keep things "in check" around here.....

Speaking of volume levels, last night I was at a friend's house and we watched a few of my dts demo DVDs and we watched dts demo DVD #7 with Fast and the Furious. After watching that clip, his girlfriend was pumped up to watch the movie again. He was complaining about how the DD audio on his DVD just lacked the "punch" that the dts demo DVD had on his system. Believe it or not, he was unaware that his DVD had a dts audio track as well.......

Once he confirmed that (by looking at the back of the case), his face "lit up" and I'm sure he'll watch it with dts audio next time.....

He's got an Onkyo A/V receiver and Polk Audio speakers. I don't know the model #s of his receiver or speakers.

Peace......

[tomdkat]

It looks like this topic has been resurrected here. Hopefully they will bring their discussion back over here...

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Ok, in this thread, Mr George makes this statement:

Tomdkat:

One correction, DTS ES Discrete is not a theatrical format, which is why there are so few ES Discrete discs. A discrete 6.1 master must be created specifically for DVD and that is not an inexpensive proposition. Besides, ES Discrete has not proved to be any better at reproducing back channel sound than EX or ES so almost no one is willing to put any more money into something that does not yield any real benefit. There isn't even any appreciable marketing benefit as with DTS 5.1, because there are so few ES Discrete decoders out there.

I think this might be changing as I found this.

I wonder if this will start happening in the US.

Peace...

[Robert George]

Tom:

This line from the linked press release...

About DTS-ES

DTS-ES is a 6.1 matrixed system enabling cinemas to deliver extreme spatial effects that quite literally surround the audience.

DTS is not installing ES Discrete decoders in commercial cinemas. They are now selling ES decoders as competition to Dolby EX.

[Iguana Man]

Originally posted by lakshman
I had the opportunity to do a little shoot-out test where we had a six-channel unencoded master going out to both a Dolby Digital encoder and a DTS encoder. Those in turn going to the respective decoders, and coming back to a console. And I could switch between the three sets of six channels; unencoded audio, Dolby-encoded audio, DTS-encoded audio. And the difference between the unencoded audio and the DTS was negligible. There might have been a little phase variance in the subwoofer channel, but besides that, the whole soundfield was still there and held up very well. Switching to Dolby Digital, it was like somebody put up brick walls between the speakers and we were now listening to something that was no longer a nice, circular, ambient sound. It was more like we were sitting inside home plate of a baseball field. You know with your center speaker being the pinnacle of that point on the plate and it was very cut in stone that those were your limitations, like brick walls. That's the best way I can describe it as opposed to being airy, fluffy pillows.

That is exactly how I see it. Nicely said and great analogy.

[airjosh]

Originally posted by Iguana Man
That is exactly how I see it. Nicely said and great analogy.

I think that is a great analogy as well, but he was certainly working with the highest possible control over the situation. I would never dispute that on paper and in a perfect situation DTS is a better sound format, but in the real world where the engineer is doing the work, the results are not always quite as clear.

[Iguana Man]

Originally posted by airjosh
....but in the real world where the engineer is doing the work, the results are not always quite as clear.

Agreed. However, for the movies I've watched/listened to in DTS versus their DD counterparts, most have sounded better in DTS. I think your gear and your setup have a lot to do with it too. I'm not saying I have a killer setup but there is a noticable difference most of the time (for me anyway ).

[mighty mint]

DTS...The ONLY way to watch a movie!!!! Long Live DTS!! It transported me to world's beyond DD into the new realm of crisp highs and smooth low lows.

[heuresk]

Originally Posted by MJZ

I have to say of the all the DD and DTS comparisons I've made, I prefer the DTS tracks (based on my own set up though). Saving Private Ryan opening beach scene is amazing in DTS.

I totally agree. I really don't think there's anything subjective at all in choosing between DD and dts. I have both versions of SPR and I popped them into my two dvd players, synched them up, and compared them--dts is clearly the winner. When I switched from DD to dts, it was as if I went from mono to stereo (only a little exaggeration here)--dts has more clarity, more expansive sound envelope, deeper, punchier bass--it's just more!

[Terrell]

I have both versions of SPR and I popped them into my two dvd players, synched them up, and compared them--dts is clearly the winner.

Of course it is, because they used completely different masters and they intentionally juiced up the DTS track on Saving Private Ryan. They've even admitted as much. The master they used for the DTS track was a better master as well. The fact is this is an absolutely terrible comparison to use as a guage. Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks are co-owners of DTS. You do the math on that one.

Until you compare DTS and Dolby Digital tracks which use the same master on a single sound system, level matched, and double blind, any comparison is obviously biased and inaccurate. The fact is there have been a couple of tests such as these, and the results showed that the differences are negligible at best, with DTS being better in some instances, and DD being better in others. However, the difference was so small as to not even be worth talking about. If you want to find these articles, I believe Home Theater Magazine and Widescreen Review did the tests I've read. It's been a few years since I read those. If you want the articles, you're welcome to go look for them.

And please, don't give me that ridiculous bitrate argument to prove DTS is better. There are so many other variables that come into play, and the DD is a more efficient than DTS.

[3DMan]

Would you say that EVERY time a reviewer prefers a DTS track in a review an inferior DD master was used? Or is every reviewer brainwashed into preferring DTS? It just seems a little far-fetched, since there are so MANY reviews that prefer the DTS. I just find it hard to believe that the reviewers are lying or the DD was a shit master every time.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by 3DMan

Would you say that EVERY time a reviewer prefers a DTS track in a review an inferior DD master was used? Or is every reviewer brainwashed into preferring DTS?

It's not a matter of someone preferring one over the other is "wrong" or anything. It's that there's no technical evidence, or at least clear technical evidence, that dts is superior to Dolby Digital. As Terrell mentions, there are tons of variables involved and it's hard to say one is "better" than the other without taking those variables into account.

Now, you might prefer dts to DD audio but that doesn't necessarily mean dts is better than DD.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

This debate lives on....

Trouble understanding DTS



Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Now, you might prefer dts to DD audio but that doesn't necessarily mean dts is better than DD.

were you feeling okay when you said that.

think about it this way the reason that warner does not release anymore dts movie is because the movies that they did do, twister lethal weapons, gained nothing but less bitrate going to the video track because the dts and Dolby Digital tracks are more or eles the same. So it a 448kbps Dolby Digtial track sounds the same as a 1538kbps dts why is it that a 768kbps dts track differs from a 448 or 384kbps Dolby Digital track, improper mastering, if everything was done properly, there would be no use for dts

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Bjoern, always enjoy the graphs you make. However, I think you should include a combined Dolby Digital L+R (or all channels except LFE) and DTS L+R (or all channels except LFE) graph for scenes with noticably different discrete sound in channels. Reason being, it has been known for some time that Dolby Digital combines channels above 10khz at 384kbps, and above 15khz at 448kbps.

You have give no real proof that channel coupling ruines the sound

[Sycho]

this comparisen was taken from the 'Germerica' DVD-Audio Disc it show's the LFE channels of each track http://www.highfidelityreview.com/tech/germerica.asp, it's funny though each of those was encoded using the same master, look at this about 2/3 the way down

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I didn't think dialogue normalization was part of the dts spec at all, but IS part of DD....

dts has a dialogue normalization spec but it has never been put to use

I had the opportunity to do a little shoot-out test where we had a six-channel unencoded master going out to both a Dolby Digital encoder and a DTS encoder. Those in turn going to the respective decoders, and coming back to a console. And I could switch between the three sets of six channels; unencoded audio, Dolby-encoded audio, DTS-encoded audio. And the difference between the unencoded audio and the DTS was negligible. There might have been a little phase variance in the subwoofer channel, but besides that, the whole soundfield was still there and held up very well. Switching to Dolby Digital, it was like somebody put up brick walls between the speakers and we were now listening to something that was no longer a nice, circular, ambient sound. It was more like we were sitting inside home plate of a baseball field. You know with your center speaker being the pinnacle of that point on the plate and it was very cut in stone that those were your limitations, like brick walls. That's the best way I can describe it as opposed to being airy, fluffy pillows.

Why do i have an extremly hard time beliving this? even though in my post above there is a link that shows that the dts track modified the audio.

[plissken99]

Originally Posted by Sycho

how does that make it better? it a totaly different mix!

I just told you why that makes it better in that post. Even if it is a totally different mix(which is generally not the case with Superbit DVDs from what I've read), then the DTS mix sounds better. Because it simulates sound better, picks up fine sound details, and has better imaging. To my ears, it is superior.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Sycho

Why do i have an extremly hard time beliving this? even though in my post above there is a link that shows that the dts track modified the audio.

I don't think he cares whether you believe it or not Sycho.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Sycho

were you feeling okay when you said that.

Yup, I as feeling great when I wrote that.

I think dts and DD are different and one isn't necessarily "better" than the other. You can argue that DD is a more efficient codec given how it can compress the audio data and still offer "performance" comparable to less efficiently compresed dts audio but that is countered by dts being preferred by a lot of people (at least those who post on the boards). Look here, on AVS Forum, and just about anywhere else online and those who prefer DD over dts or who feel dts is a "waste" are in the clear minority.

I love dts audio as much as I love DD audio and I've got no problem with the two of them co-existing as different solutions to the same problem: getting rich and exciting audio stored on DVD-Video discs in the best way possible.

Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by plissken99

I just told you why that makes it better in that post. Even if it is a totally different mix(which is generally not the case with Superbit DVDs from what I've read), then the DTS mix sounds better. Because it simulates sound better, picks up fine sound details, and has better imaging. To my ears, it is superior.

that does not make it better. what if the same mix was used on the dolby digital track and it sounded the same? just because it uses a better mix does not mean it's better. Just look at the lion king dvd release, there is a "enhanced home theater mix" in dolby digital in region 1 and dts in region 2, does that mean the region 2 will sound better, no.

[plissken99]

Originally Posted by Sycho

that does not make it better.

Well it does for me dude.

Originally Posted by Sycho

what if the same mix was used on the dolby digital track and it sounded the same?

Well when that happens, you give me a call.

Originally Posted by Sycho

just because it uses a better mix does not mean it's better.

Sure as hell seems to.

Originally Posted by Sycho

Just look at the lion king dvd release, there is a "enhanced home theater mix" in dolby digital in region 1 and dts in region 2, does that mean the region 2 will sound better, no.

How would I know? Never heard the 2 side by side, or either for that matter, not my kind of movie. But thats beside the point.

I will debate no farther with you about this, you make religious debates look like a cakewalk. Despite the fact that I've stated numerous times that DTS sounds better to my ears, you keep trying to prove different. You should have been saying this before me, we must agree to disagree.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by plissken99

I will debate no farther with you about this, you make religious debates look like a cakewalk. Despite the fact that I've stated numerous times that DTS sounds better to my ears, you keep trying to prove different. You should have been saying this before me, we must agree to disagree.

to you it sounds better on different material, ie the different mix.

[tomdkat]

Folks, Here is just one comparison of DD and dts which shows some of how there are many variables that come into play when comparing the two audio codecs.

Enjoy!

Peace...

[plissken99]

Originally Posted by Sycho

to you it sounds better on different material, ie the different mix.

Ok cool, DTS uses a better mix, sounds better, fine by me.

[plissken99]

Ok cool, DTS uses a better mix, sounds better, fine by me.

[tomdkat]

I found THIS thread over on AVS Forum. It discusses Warner's dts decision as well as info pertinent to the recent discussion on this forum.

Enjoy!

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

This is really pointless folks....honest, it is.

I could care less which is "supposed" to sound better. I DO care what DOES sound better to ME. I do NOT have a killer system, I do NOT have great hearing, I am NOT even 35 years old anymore!

I came into the whole DD vs DTS thing completely naive. I knew I had a receiver that could decode DTS, but it got used about as much as my love life since then there were few DTS dvd's. When I finally heard a good DTS track, actually, when I finally hit DTS on the ol receiver and then sat back for the show, I could in fact hear a significant difference in the audio. Why, hell If I know, but I tell you this....I "liked it". I in fact said to myself, WOW. The "WOW" part is to me the most significant.....I said WOW, and I've since enjoyed far more DTS tracks (audio-wise) than DD. And puhleese! That is NOT to say I haven't enjoyed DD tracks because I HAVE! What is the fucking problem in liking BOTH?


Sorry, but I akin this to a Chevy guy versus Mopar guy....both cars give you the ride of you life, but the mere fact you own one or the other makes you automatically biased towards the other. --Why?-- They are both fun as hell......oh wait, that's right....we gota crunch the #'s to have a "final" say on which hits the 1/4 mile quicker.....

Rant OVER!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I could care less which is "supposed" to sound better. I DO care what DOES sound better to ME.

Well, this is really it, in a nutshell. No one has any issues with which you prefer but these are two completely different statements:

I prefer dts audio to DD audio.

dts audio is better than DD audio.

The problem is people use the rationale for statement #1 to make statement #2 and that's just not right. It's like people like to think what they prefer is "the best" since it's not enough to be just "their preference." If those who prefer dts to DD wouldn't try to convince others dts was better than DD, and vice-versa, we wouldn't be having these kinds of debates.

Peace...

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I prefer dts audio to DD audio.
dts audio is better than DD audio.

Both statements are ditto for me.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

Both statements are ditto for me.

See what I mean, Iguana?

Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Well, this is really it, in a nutshell. No one has any issues with which you prefer but these are two completely different statements:

I prefer dts audio to DD audio.

dts audio is better than DD audio.

The problem is people use the rationale for statement #1 to make statement #2 and that's just not right. It's like people like to think what they prefer is "the best" since it's not enough to be just "their preference." If those who prefer dts to DD wouldn't try to convince others dts was better than DD, and vice-versa, we wouldn't be having these kinds of debates.

Peace...

that is an extremly good point that people fail to understand, make you a deal I'm ocassionaly listen to some dts tracks when people who say "dts is better because of better mixing" understand, and follow that statement

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Sorry, but I akin this to a Chevy guy versus Mopar guy....both cars give you the ride of you life, but the mere fact you own one or the other makes you automatically biased towards the other. --Why?-- They are both fun as hell......oh wait, that's right....we gota crunch the #'s to have a "final" say on which hits the 1/4 mile quicker.....

I don't know...The new Chevy 472 small block makes shit loads of power combing that with a S-10, yes a S-10 an a 6 speed close gear ratio tranny, like the ones in the new GTO, and you got's a new competitor.

just kiddin

[plissken99]

Exactly Tomkat. Both are great formats and we get bogged down trying to argue which is better based on our opinions. I prefer DTS, where some prefer Dolby.

And Sycho I think your a very smart reasonable person, it just bugged me whenever anyone asked about, or looked forward to a future release having a DTS, you would chime in that DTS is not necissary, when other feel it is. Everyone has heard these debates, they have listened to both and have made their decision. So like I said before, lets agree to disagree.

Oh, I prefer Honda.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by plissken99

So like I said before, lets agree to disagree.

I can certainly understand how posts like Sycho's regarding something you prefer can get under your (and other's) skin. Here's a question for you and others:

Why does this argument/debate have to exist? Why is it not enough for you to be happy with your preference, regardless of whether it is "the best" or not?

For example, I'm loyal to Pioneer gear. I have a Pioneer Elite A/V receiver and a few Pioneer DVD players. I've given Pioneer DVD players as gifts to people and ahve no problem recommending them to anyone. Pioneer DVD players get slammed for their less-than-stellar progressive scan video performance when examined under a microscope. Panasonic and Denon DVD players are considered better than the Pioneer offerings since they have better video processing components. Pioneer A/V receivers tend to get mentioned clsoe to last (if at all) when discussing A/V receiver recommendations with Denon, Onkyo, and Yamaha being mentioned the most.

Given the fact the most in the online communities I participate in don't consider Pioneer gear to be "the best" that doesn't change my view toward Pioneer gear nor does it make me feel "stupid" or anything else along that line since different people have different needs and Pioneer gear suits my needs extremely well.

This debate is a bit different, granted, but why does it matter to you what people say about dts audio, whether it be good or bad, since what people say on the boards won't change your listening habits at home. You can always check out the other audio track if you want to see if you prefer it to the preferred audio track or not and then listen to the one you like best.

I've got no issue with people discussing or debating the merits of DD audio and dts audio but the "which is better" argument is one that I just don't get. It's not like the DVD spec is going to change and it's not like the studios are going to immediately change how they author DVDs.

Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by plissken99

itjust bugged me whenever anyone asked about, or looked forward to a future release having a DTS, you would chime in that DTS is not necissary, when other feel it is.

the reason i said those things was because some people would say "...would sound awesome in dts", "i hope Warner learns how to do seamless branching and dts" well warner did do dts and from what i understand warner developed and has the rights to seamless branching, or so I've been told.