The Battlefield: Dolby Digital vs dts (Official thread)

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

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?

Simple......see Dilmos post above. (touche'!)

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Simple......see Dilmos post above. (touche'!)

Actually, I would like to read Dilmo's response to my question.

Peace...

[Sycho]

it seems that now the argument has swiched from which is better to which mix is better, but to prove Dolby digital will not modife the original intergraty of the mix I will take a 2ch aiff that I created in soundtrack, and it includes lots of different types of sounds, basically puck edited so tomdkat can read this at work: adult film music, I will compress to AC3 2ch, MP3, WMA9, OGG and someone else pick another freeware lossy codec, i will upload to my webspace and you tell me if it modifes the audio. every lossy format will be encoded at the same bitrate, to be determined.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Actually, I would like to read Dilmo's response to my question.

Peace...

Originally Posted by Sycho

it seems that now the argument has swiched from which is better to which mix is better, but to prove Dolby digital will not modife the original intergraty of the mix I will take a 2ch aiff that I created in soundtrack, and it includes lots of different types of sounds, basically puck edited so tomdkat can read this at work: adult film music, I will compress to AC3 2ch, MP3, WMA9, OGG and someone else pick another freeware lossy codec, i will upload to my webspace and you tell me if it modifes the audio. every lossy format will be encoded at the same bitrate, to be determined.

HEY!! You aren't f-ing Dilmo!!!!!

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

HEY!! You aren't f-ing Dilmo!!!!!

I am. What can I do you for?

[tomdkat]

One thing this whole debate has not included is a definition of the term "better". "Better" is a subjective term that can mean different things to different people.

Clearly, DD is more efficient but does technical efficiency alone translate to DD being "better"? On the flip-side, dts can have higher bitrates than DD on DVD (DD on D-VHS I believe is 640 kbps vs DVDs 448kbps max) but does the higher bitrate translate to dts being "better"?

What does "better" mean in this debate? There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring which audio format that sounds best to you, but that's just what it is: preference. That doesn't mean any one is "better" or "worse" than the other. The problem with this whole debate is people try to prove one is technically "better" than the other to support their preference, which is problematic itself. DD being a more efficient codec is about the only objective fact that can be proven to differentiate the two audio encoding mechanisms and without a proper definition of "better", within the context of this debate, every other techincal fact used to prove one is "better" than the other suddenly becomes subjective. DD combines channels at some frequency. Fine. That might sound like a technical deficiency but considering it was designed into DD, the reasoning behind why it was done might be justification for why DD is "better", but again without knowing what "better" means we really can't come to any conclusions. On the flip side, the channel combining might be a technical side-effect of how DD functions that is undesirable, but does this means it's necessarily a "bad" thing?

I've read commentary but some who are well respected in online DVD community indicating DD is preferred over dts. I have yet to read people considered peers of these folks comment to the contrary. However, it's clear that the vast majority of DVD enthusiasts (regular DVD nuts like you and me and not "experts") prefer dts to DD, which is relevant to this discussion.

I think we need to be comfortable knowing we can enjoy watching movies in our prefered fashion (if possible) and let the rest of it go until we can get the term "better" defined and conduct an objective audio test to see if people can actually tell the difference between DD and dts audio. This sounds like a great event at Audio F/X that Seamonkey coordinated in the past.

Peace...

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

let the rest of it go until we can get the term "better" defined

This is another one of those no win situations, when you try to convince someone that one thing is better than the other. To prefer one thing is fine. That's a personal decision. DTS is technically the winner in the DTS vs. DD war. Specifications are not preferred facts. They are what they are. What one prefers to hear is clearly the one they think is better. That though is not how technology works. DTS will someday be replaced by a better format. Just enjoy your preference and make your ears happy.

[Sycho]

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.

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

[SeanL]

Here's some interesting reading.


http://dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dtsposition.pdf

http://dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dolbyrvu.pdf


This was in response to claims made by Dolby against DTS, back in 2000 I think.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

This is another one of those no win situations, when you try to convince someone that one thing is better than the other. To prefer one thing is fine. That's a personal decision.

Exactly.

DTS is technically the winner in the DTS vs. DD war. Specifications are not preferred facts. They are what they are.

While it's true that specs are not preferrences, I think your statement about dts being technically "better" than DD hasn't yet been objectively proven since "better" hasn't been yet defined and more importantly the design goals behind dts in the home and DD aren't being factored in. Sure one could argue that "technically" a higher bitrate is "better", but that's not an objective argument for reasons I mention above.

What one prefers to hear is clearly the one they think is better. That though is not how technology works.

Agreed. In fact, sometimes the entity that is not technically superior is often the most popular. Microsoft Windows is a prime example.

DTS will someday be replaced by a better format. Just enjoy your preference and make your ears happy.

The same applies to DD as well. It will be interesting to see what comes out next, especially with the additional storage capacity HD-DVD will bring to the table.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

This was in response to claims made by Dolby against DTS, back in 2000 I think.

Yeah, I remember this debate and dts' response to Dolby's claims weren't 100% correct/accurate either.

Peace...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Yeah, I remember this debate and dts' response to Dolby's claims weren't 100% correct/accurate either.

Peace...

Well, they may not be...but that wasn't my point anyway.

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I think we need to be comfortable knowing we can enjoy watching movies in our prefered fashion

I agree. Just enjoy!

While it's true that specs are not preferrences, I think your statement about dts being technically "better" than DD hasn't yet been objectively proven since "better" hasn't been yet defined and more importantly the design goals behind dts in the home and DD aren't being factored in. Sure one could argue that "technically" a higher bitrate is "better", but that's not an objective argument for reasons I mention above.

Your right. It's all in the context of the word "better", and its applications. I digress.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

The same applies to DD as well. It will be interesting to see what comes out next, especially with the additional storage capacity HD-DVD will bring to the table.

Peace...

Dolby Digital Plus is next in line and will allow for lower bitrates without scarifcing quality, more channels, and upto 6mbit/sec

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Sycho

Dolby Digital Plus is next in line and will allow for lower bitrates without scarifcing quality, more channels, and upto 6mbit/sec

Have any links to info on DD+?

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Well, they may not be...but that wasn't my point anyway.

I know. With all of the talk about the technical differences between DD and dts, the documents you reference are definitely pertinent. I just wanted to make sure people also knew dts' response to Dolby wasn't readily accepted as being "right" to support the position dts is "better", again whatever "better" means.

Peace...

[Sycho]

I read some where that dts said they sounded better than PCM, I'm not saying they said , I just read it somewhere, if they did say that, how can something sound better than what was inputed to the encoder?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Sycho

how can something sound better than what was inputed to the encoder?

That just shows you just how good the dts encoder actually is!

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

I personally think Blue Oyster Cult said it best:

Quote:

"History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Godzilla!"


Now...how the hell do I make this all mean something in relation to this very important thread?

Think about it......

[mighty mint]

I can't believe that I took the time to read this whole thread

It seems to me that with system upgrades one can hear things in the sound mix that perhaps were not defined clearly enough before. I just upgraded my sub to the Paradigm Reference Servo 15 and I am hearing things in both the DD and the DTS that I have NEVER heard before! That being said, while some tracks sound better, alot of tracks that I considered good before now sound way worse. As your system begins to represent the actual sound mix more accurately the results can sometimes be surprising. Unfortunately, alot of the DVDs that I thought were killer in DD now don't sound so hot. Sorry to add more fuel to the fire but I have found DTS for the most part to be the most consistent mix on my system. Some may say that these are "percieved differences" but to my ears there can be a definite difference.

I have been very impressed with the new Star Wars DD soundtrack and the new Matrix movies are no slouch, that is for sure. But, Lord of the Rings in DTS just rocks my socks!

[downhuman]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

I can't believe that I took the time to read this whole thread

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

It seems to me that with system upgrades one can hear things in the sound mix that perhaps were not defined clearly enough before. I just upgraded my sub to the Paradigm Reference Servo 15 and I am hearing things in both the DD and the DTS that I have NEVER heard before! That being said, while some tracks sound better, alot of tracks that I considered good before now sound way worse. As your system begins to represent the actual sound mix more accurately the results can sometimes be surprising. Unfortunately, alot of the DVDs that I thought were killer in DD now don't sound so hot. Sorry to add more fuel to the fire but I have found DTS for the most part to be the most consistent mix on my system. Some may say that these are "percieved differences" but to my ears there can be a definite difference.

I don't dispute the impact one's audio gear has on how the audio is reproduced. I'm sure you did hear differences you didn't hear previously. With regard to the audio mixes you don't think are as "hot" as you once did, I have to ask how much of this is due to the quality of the mix that was made vs it being DD or dts? Look at the first Jurassic Park dts DVD. There were problems with the dts mix that were fixed when dts re-mixed the audio and the DVDs were re-released. I'm sure you could hear differences between the first Jurassic Park dts DVD release and the re-release given the "fixed" dts mix. Does that mean dts once sucked and didn't anymore? Nope, it means the mix was poor the first time around.

How does this fit in with your recent experiences?

Peace...

[Sycho]

what exacaly was wrong with the first JP dvd's i hear it was too much bass or something like that

[Dilmo]

The original, if I am correct had a problem with the lfe channel (hardly any signal). I just exchanged mine recently and you can tell a dramatic difference. This only involves the DTS edition.