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.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here is a link to the dts analysis done by Dolby Labs. This link is to a PDF file.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yup. You can read some analysis of the JP DVD here.

Peace...

[Sycho]

would you say the dts editions of JP JP2 are a hyped up mix or do they reflect the theatrical soundtrack?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Sycho

would you say the dts editions of JP JP2 are a hyped up mix or do they reflect the theatrical soundtrack?

I wouldn't say anything since I don't know. Those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know...

Peace...

[Sycho]

i might, thats a big might buy the dts editions as they were released thectrically only in dts(which is not the same as in the home), but i think it's a different mix

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I wouldn't say anything since I don't know. Those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know...

Peace...

Well I happen to know, but I'll never tell! :p

And...I have a new, yet still bad, analogy! I advanced my timing 6 degrees today....and holy-moley is my throttle response wayyyy better.

DD = 32 degrees
DTS = 38 degrees

VaaaVaaaVaaaVROOOOM baby!!!

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I wouldn't say anything since I don't know. Those who know don't tell and those who tell don't know...

I like that!

[mighty mint]

I have mentioned in previous threads my comparison of the 1st DTS release of JP and the second release (DTS). First, There is a HUGE difference in sound quality. Alot of sites noted only the enhanced Bass level and...granted it must have been boosted huge, which is okay because, quite frankly, the first DTS release sucked big time! When I recieved my new copy the most obvious was the bass and it was worth the upgrade, the LFE is tight and kickin'...only when I got my new sub though did that track really take on a shine of it's own. With the average sub all you will hear is the boomy bass which for me the first couple of times was a rush but I got very tired of hearing the boom. My upgraded sub replicates the bass much more accurately and it is stellar. The only way that I can describe it is that the LFE is energized...because my sub now can reach 17hz (I believe that is the level before roll-off occurs but one can check the Paradigm site easy enough) new bass nuances are able to be heard and felt. I have found that a sub that is trying to replicate a depth that it simply cannot do well, often sounds boomy and lacking in dimension. Now in all fairness, my speakers sound alot better now that the sub is doing what it should do, so the surrounding forest took on new life as well. At this point you might be asking about DD and what I found there. There is no doubt that bass replication is better in both formats now and because my system is working very efficiently my speakers sound better too...BUT I have not found a DTS track that has gotten worse sounding to my ears, they have only gotten better. 5th Element sounds much more refined and seamless, Gladiator (lest anyone think I am pushin Superbits) sounds much more crisp. Now don't get me wrong the DD on these titles sound good, they always have but some other films that had DD only tracks have degraded in quality - the biggest shocker - the original Matrix. It sounded awesome before but now I hear dropouts and bass that sounds confined. Please realize (all you DD fans) that I am not trying to diss any format) this is just what I have experienced in my home theater with the changes I have recently made. I contribute alot of the recent sound degredation to poor masters being used...And I agree that that has alot to do with it and the DTS Lethal Weapons are crap for sound...they are...no doubt. But when you use a really well mastered soundtrack that the formats are based on, like Master and Commander, I noticed a significance difference in the way the bass end wa reproduced and in crisper highs...is it a boost in volume?...I have tried that and have only come to the conclusion that the largest difference can be heard in the way the LFE sounds. In my mind I am convinced of the better DTS highs and I use the Lord of the Rings to compare DD with DTS and for me the difference is obvious in the subtle sounds - like the cries of the Ringwraiths. Turn up the dolby loud enough and do you get the same sound?..I don't think so...it simply is that - just louder.I will say that the pod race in the Star Wars is much more enjoyable now with this sub as it is no longer just bass boom but clearly defined engines that are roaring by. Anyhoo...I recommend the servo technology to anyone who cares about accuarate bass replication in their system - it is a marvelous design. I might add, since I seem to be writing a novel, that DD is much much more directional in it's sound stage...With astounding regularity I have found DTS to be more seamless and blended better. Now, some people enjoy hearing exactly what sound effect is coming out of the exact speaker so DD might just get them off in that regards...I prefer to have the directional sound accurate but with other sounds blending to make the soundstake completely encompassing rather than partitioned. I believe Sycho cited a reviewer that stated DD sounded partitioned and for me that is a great description of the difference to my ears. Mind over matter? I have tested it with myself on numerous occasions and have done so (much to the chagrin) of many other people who are not so sound/tech oriented...they all stated that the DD was far more defined in it's direction and the DTS soundstage more encompassing. Some use words to describe it as more "clean" but I prefer to describe it as more "refined."

(p.s. - when I said that there were DD tracks that were "hot" I was not meaning that in an audiophile sense of the volume being mastered too high, I was simply meaning that I thought they kicked butt )

[tomdkat]

Damn, mighty mint... I thought I wrote a lot!

Peace...

[mighty mint]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Damn, mighty mint... I thought I wrote a lot!

Peace...

Yeah I know...I haven't written much of anything the last year so I thought I would make up for it in one foul swoop (hehe).

[Sword of Whedon]

In my mind I am convinced of the better DTS highs and I use the Lord of the Rings to compare DD with DTS and for me the difference is obvious in the subtle sounds - like the cries of the Ringwraiths. Turn up the dolby loud enough and do you get the same sound?..I don't think so...

They're different mixes. The Dolby mix has been jacked to sound good on people's TVs (aka bringing down the highs). The DTS mix is the theatrical mix.

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Sword of Whedon

They're different mixes. The Dolby mix has been jacked to sound good on people's TVs (aka bringing down the highs). The DTS mix is the theatrical mix.

you sure because on most movies the dolby digital track is the theatrical
edited: the dts can't be the theatrical for lotr because it is ES discrete, while theatrical formats use 5.1 and matrix decoding for rear surround

[Dilmo]

It depends on how the theater wishes to run it. have you ever noticed that some new films start out at dts, then after a while they lower it to DD?

[Sycho]

dts in the cinema uses the same mix as dolby in the cinema, but they are both different compared to the home counter part

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by mighty mint

With the average sub all you will hear is the boomy bass which for me the first couple of times was a rush but I got very tired of hearing the boom. My upgraded sub replicates the bass much more accurately and it is stellar. The only way that I can describe it is that the LFE is energized...because my sub now can reach 17hz (I believe that is the level before roll-off occurs but one can check the Paradigm site easy enough) new bass nuances are able to be heard and felt. I have found that a sub that is trying to replicate a depth that it simply cannot do well, often sounds boomy and lacking in dimension.

You know, I currently don't have a stand-alone sub but use the subs integrated in my Pioneer Elite TZ-F700s (front mains) as my subs and I rarely ever hear the subs "booming" but I often feel additional pressure in the room in conjunction with hearing low, deep tones. Occasionally, I'll hear the inside of the speaker "squeek" when really deep bass is being processed but it never sounds "boomy" to me. My front mains go to down to 25Hz, as least according to the specs.

I've heard boomy subs and never thought that sounded good. If the deep bass sounded like it was coming from "that speaker over there", I always considered that to be an incorrect speaker configuration given my uneducated audio tastes. Chromy and 1138 have heard my speakers in action so they could more objectively comment how how good, bad, or ugly they are but when I watch some movies with deep bass (like in The Two Towers when the Ring Wraithe was flying low over Frodo in that swamp area) I smile when I hear low grumbles or rumbles (like an Earthquake) and feel the room pressure increase vs hearing a "boomy" speaker in the corner of my room. The thing is, I have no idea what I'm missing with my current setup.

Now don't get me wrong the DD on these titles sound good, they always have but some other films that had DD only tracks have degraded in quality - the biggest shocker - the original Matrix. It sounded awesome before but now I hear dropouts and bass that sounds confined. Please realize (all you DD fans) that I am not trying to diss any format) this is just what I have experienced in my home theater with the changes I have recently made.

This makes perfect sense to me since DVD authors have improved their authoring capabilities in addition to the technology improving to allow for better DD and dts encoding and DVD authoring. The audio on "The Matrix" has probably always "sucked" to you but you never knew it until now.

In my mind I am convinced of the better DTS highs and I use the Lord of the Rings to compare DD with DTS and for me the difference is obvious in the subtle sounds - like the cries of the Ringwraiths.

I do believe dts can reproduce higher frequency highs, but I find them to often be "piercing" to the point of discomfort. Gladiator is a prime example. The scene at the beginning when the flaming arrows are being shot. At first, I thought the dts audio was better given how crisp the arrow's release was but now I find it a bit much. What I find interesting is when I play that same scene with THX Cinema engaged the dts audio sounds almost identical to the DD audio.

I might add, since I seem to be writing a novel, that DD is much much more directional in it's sound stage...With astounding regularity I have found DTS to be more seamless and blended better. Now, some people enjoy hearing exactly what sound effect is coming out of the exact speaker so DD might just get them off in that regards...I prefer to have the directional sound accurate but with other sounds blending to make the soundstake completely encompassing rather than partitioned. I believe Sycho cited a reviewer that stated DD sounded partitioned and for me that is a great description of the difference to my ears.

I've found just the opposite to be the case for me. I forget which movie I used as teh test material, it might have been U-571 or Gladiator. When I played the dts audio the dialog sounded like it was coming specifically from the front speaker. When I played the same scene with DD audio, the dialog sounded like it was coming from in front of me and spanned the front mains and center channel. I believe I've commented on this before, and in this very thread, and Ruined provided an explanation of what I was hearing. I'll post a link to that if I can find it.

EDIT: Ok, here is my post in this thread describing my U-571 experience with my brother. Here is Ruined's response.

Peace...

[plissken99]

I've been removed from this discussion, but a point I thought I'd add. Thanks to being a member of Nicheflix.com , I had the chance to view a Japanese version of T2, with a DTS track that is full bit rate, and moreover, NOT downmixed for HT, but is the mix that was used in theaters. Wheither the Dolby 5.1 on the disc was like this or not is unknown, but the DTS vs Dolby on that disc was hands down in favor of the DTS track. LFE was much stronger, small details in the sound were more prominent.