The Battlefield: Dolby Digital vs dts (Official thread)

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by plissken99

I've been removed from this discussion, but a point I thought I'd add.

Why do you say this? Did you mean you opted to back out previously?

Peace...

[plissken99]

Well I uh... just lost interest.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by plissken99

Well I uh... just lost interest.

Ok...

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

You know...my question has always, and will continue to be: Why does DTS sound better 90% of the time for ME.

Remember...I did NOT come into this hellbent on one or the other...Helga helped, but that is a different topic

I am part of a "trend" that Hel...Ruined mentioned. Why do people prefer one or the other? Well...here's my take....and it's completely non scientific:

1) Tighter bass
2) Wider soundstage
3) Seemless front stage.

Those 3 little things sell me to the point where I might say DTS is "better". Is it? Who the f-ck knows, but I know in MY HT...it's a 90% winner.

What does this mean? It means my opinion is my opinion. But, my opinion is best.....for me!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

What does this mean? It means my opinion is my opinion. But, my opinion is best.....for me!

Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

You know...my question has always, and will continue to be: Why does DTS sound better 90% of the time for ME.

that is a question that allmost everyone forgets to ask them selves, but I'm glad you noticed, but now maybe you can only use dts for special events, you know listen to the Dolby Digital track more often

[Sycho]

i think i found a perfectly logical reason for this so called "airiness".

The Dolby digital track is typically the theatrical master, which is meant to be played in a theater, with multiple loudspeakers playing back the same sound, creating a more "open" sound-field.

when transfered to home video the same master is used, and if played back in your home, only one (maybe two) loudspeakers used, creating a void between the mains and the rears.

the dts track on the other hand is remix, probably with only one or two loud speakers for each rear, then the "void" is taken in account, thus there in no void.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Sycho

i think i found a perfectly logical reason for this so called "airiness".

The Dolby digital track is typically the theatrical master, which is meant to be played in a theater, with multiple loudspeakers playing back the same sound, creating a more "open" sound-field.

when transfered to home video the same master is used, and if played back in your home, only one (maybe two) loudspeakers used, creating a void between the mains and the rears.

the dts track on the other hand is remix, probably with only one or two loud speakers for each rear, then the "void" is taken in account, thus there in no void.

I think your wrong son.

Why do I think you're wrong....well...because! The "air" is what I and others hear that seperates DD from DTS.....the "air" is what makes it cool to my ears.

Sorry.....I got a load on.....but man oh man...when are you gonna give up and just accept the fact that some shit sounds better to some even though it "shouldn't" by your repetitive attempts at explaining why it shouldn't?

Sorry man...I mean that...but for crying out loud. If most people like "A" why should "B" be shoved down there throats when it's the "ears" that "hear"????

Forgive me son...it's Sunday, it's 20:00 and I haven't eaten, yet I have "consumed".

Take care dude, you're a smart kid...that I don't doubt. Honest.

[Sycho]

I'm telling you why it's different. stop think dts is better because of the mix they use, just ry the lion king it has the theactrial track and an enhanced track, both dolby digital, but which will you say sounds better

dolby digital has been prove time and time again to provide sound that closest matches the input

edited:

Take care dude, you're a smart kid...that I don't doubt. Honest.

thank you

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Sorry.....I got a load on.....but man oh man...when are you gonna give up and just accept the fact that some shit sounds better to some even though it "shouldn't" by your repetitive attempts at explaining why it shouldn't?

Because most don't make statements like you make above. In fact, you're one of the few who qualifies your preference for dts audio when you comment on this topic.

It's fruitless to debate one's preference but when that preference is stated as some kind of "fact", that's when it comes under scrutiny. Furthermore, no one has defined "better" yet so we're still not fully on the same page either.

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Because most don't make statements like you make above. In fact, you're one of the few who qualifies your preference for dts audio when you comment on this topic.

Ouch! Ok, ok....I'm sorry Sycho.

Originally Posted by tomdkat

It's fruitless to debate one's preference but when that preference is stated as some kind of "fact", that's when it comes under scrutiny. Furthermore, no one has defined "better" yet so we're still not fully on the same page either.

Peace...

Well, when I said 'fact' it wasn't in reference to my 'preference'. You remind me of my departed Dad sometimes Tom.....putting me in my place with carefully crafted words that unfortunately (for me) make perfect sense.

That's a good thing by the way....

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Well, when I said 'fact' it wasn't in reference to my 'preference'. You remind me of my departed Dad sometimes Tom.....putting me in my place with carefully crafted words that unfortunately (for me) make perfect sense.

That's a good thing by the way....

And another thing...

Speaking of parents, my grandmother (deceased) on my mom's side used to say this when she was setting someone straight, "Let me tell you one damn thing,..." Bless her heart...


Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Ouch! Ok, ok....I'm sorry Sycho.

no problem, just tell me you understand my reasoning on why dts sounds better in some people's experience, IE dolby using the theatrical mix

[Iguana Man]

Ahhhhh......love is back in the "air" (no pun intended Sycho)

This thread is long, many many pages....it's a difficult thing to keep up with as far as "where" it is going (Tom, you started it!).

With that said, may I ask the point of this thread ?

Grandma...Dad....whomever , help me out here.

1) Are we discussing the technical aspects of each format?

2) Are we discussing the prefered format based on personal listening?

3) Are we discussing the "better" of the 2 formats based on.....what!
___a) Personal preferences.
___b) Technical superiority.

4) Will this ever be settled?

5) Will I stop posting when half in the bag?

6) Will I hear "Let me tell you one damn thing" again?

[Dilmo]

This describes this ongoing rant.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

This describes this ongoing rant.

That smiley thing combined with your 'title' has put a disturbing image in my 'minds-eye' Dilmo.....Thanks! (I think).

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

1) Are we discussing the technical aspects of each format?

Yep

2) Are we discussing the prefered format based on personal listening?

Yep, since preferences seem to be the consistent basis for the "better" argument.

3) Are we discussing the "better" of the 2 formats based on.....what!
___a) Personal preferences.
___b) Technical superiority.

Option B would be the best discussion but a mixture of both has what's been happening.

4) Will this ever be settled?

Probably not as people will continue to prefer what they want and think their preference is "the best".

5) Will I stop posting when half in the bag?

Nope.. you can't live without this place...

6) Will I hear "Let me tell you one damn thing" again?

That depends on what you say from here on out...

Peace...

[Sycho]

it's setteled now as dolby digital has been selected for both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray

[Sycho]

here's the press release http://dolby.com/about/news_events/p..._23.09.04.html

edited:it seems that dts also snuck in, even through hd-dvd was only suppose to have one lossy and one lossly
http://dtsonline.com/company/press/p...cID=1&yID=2004
but if you google "dolby hd-dvd" or "dolby blu-ray" you get press releases with "dts hd-dvd" or "dts blu-ray" nothing even close to what dts said, i think it's bull shit

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Sycho

here's the press release http://dolby.com/about/news_events/p..._23.09.04.html

As evidence of its pioneering efforts in multichannel audio entertainment, Dolby Laboratories announces that Dolby® audio technologies have been selected as mandatory formats for both High-Definition Digital Versatile Disc (HD DVD) and Blu-ray Disc. The DVD Forum has selected Dolby Digital Plus and MLP Lossless™ as mandatory audio formats for HD DVD. The Blu-ray Disc Association announced that Dolby Digital will be a mandatory technology on its new format, the Blu-ray Disc. Both discs are next-generation packaged media formats designed to deliver high-definition picture quality.

Wow, this should make audio transfers on HD-DVD really something to write home about.

Peace...

[SeanL]

I have to ask...


Sycho, why do you go out of your way to try and tell everyone who likes DTS, that DD is better? Why should it matter to you? You say that no one has proven how DTS is better than DD...but you haven't proven where DD is better. It's all a matter of opinion.

Why not let the folks who like DTS keep on liking it?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Why should it matter to you?

This is a good question.

You say that no one has proven how DTS is better than DD...but you haven't proven where DD is better. It's all a matter of opinion.

It's been proven DD is a more efficient codec but "better" has yet to be adequately defined.

Peace...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

It's been proven DD is a more efficient codec but "better" has yet to be adequately defined.

Peace...

That is correct...and " more efficient" does not automatically make it better.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

That is correct...and " more efficient" does not automatically make it better.

Of course, since we haven't defined what "better" means within the context of this debate. For all I know, people think dts is "better" because the dts logo is cooler looking.

Definitions, we need an accurate definition of "better" so we will know we're on the same page and can then take steps to prove which is actually "better".

The important thing to keep in mind is the audio format that is "better" might not necessarily be the one that is preferred, which are two different things.

Peace...

[Dilmo]

I've in agreement with tomdkat on the debate for quite some time. The terms "better" and "preference" have been blurred. No one seems to be content with what they hear. I prefer dts because the sound is better than DD.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Definitions, we need an accurate definition of "better" so we will know we're on the same page and can then take steps to prove which is actually "better".

Again, why should it matter? Why go thru the hoops to even define the term "better"? Some like DTS, some like DD...end of discussion. You can provide all the tech specs you want, and if someone likes what they hear via DTS/DD better then no amount of debate, or technical debunking is gonna change their mind.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Dilmo

I prefer dts because the sound is better than DD.

I've got no problem with this statement at all.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Again, why should it matter? Why go thru the hoops to even define the term "better"? Some like DTS, some like DD...end of discussion. You can provide all the tech specs you want, and if someone likes what they hear via DTS/DD better then no amount of debate, or technical debunking is gonna change their mind.

It matters because people use the term "better" when they mean "preference". If you say this is "better" than that and I don't think that's right, I'll challenge you on it. In the case of current DVD, space needs to be conserved and a number of well respected people feel that space would be better allocated for better video transfers than for dts audio since DD audio is already required by the DVD spec.

Now, if people changed their statements to "I wish this DVD release had dts audio because I prefer it to DD audio" people who think dts is a waste would have no grounds for challenging anyone and if they continued to do so, then they would basically be picking a fight with that other person.

As for providing technical specs proving why one is "better" than the other, in addition to a definition of "better", you're correct in that the one that is proven to be "better" won't necessarily change one's preference. However, we will finally know what the "better" of the two audio formats on current DVD-Video discs is and we can continue to enjoy the audio we prefer.

Peace....

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

It matters because people use the term "better" when they mean "preference". If you say this is "better" than that and I don't think that's right, I'll challenge you on it.

So, just because *I*(or anyone else) say something is better, that automatically makes it true? Wow, I wish I'd known that sooner.

Seriously though, doesn't it stand to reason that anyone here who says that a particular audio format is better than another, it is their opinion? I don't think we've had any audio engineers, with years of experience, participate in the discussion. What we have here has just been...shall we say, "passionate" debate centered on opinion and backed by personal listening experience.

There are some people here who say that DD is better, but I'm not gonna challenge them on it, cause I know it is their opinion. They don't buy my dvds, they don't buy my audio equipment, so why should I care whether they think DD is "better"? If someone likes DD, they can have it tattooed on their ass for all I care.

If you like DD, then be happy that you can enjoy alot of movies in your favorite audio format, cause you ain't gonna change the other person's mind on the subject... the same goes for you DTS fans.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Seriously though, doesn't it stand to reason that anyone here who says that a particular audio format is better than another, it is their opinion?

Well, you would think that would be the case but I don't think it really is since forums like these are where people go to learn about stuff they don't already know about. Not everyone knows what DD and dts are and come here to find out if those are things they need to look for when buying components or DVDs, etc.

It's the misuse of the term "better" that causes the most "problem", as I see it, since those using it aren't differentiating between their personal preference and fact. Given this conversation:

Tom: "Is DVD better than VHS?"
Sean: "Yes it is?
Tom: "Why is it better? What makes it better?"

Then you would start listing reasons like higher video resolution, digital video/audio vs analog video/audio, accessibility to content on the DVD, and a bunch of other things which can be used to objectively prove DVD is "better" than VHS. You wouldn't respond with reasons like, "Because DVD's really cool and the video has a 3-D look to it," and so on because those are purely subjective things that not everyone will agree on.

If you continue to say dts is "better" than DVD, I will continue to challenge you on it. If you say you prefer dts to DVD or I like dts better than DD, I'll have nothing to say.

Oh yeah, with regard to the audio engineers it's true we haven't had any participate in discussions here but given the DD and dts documents on the subject, it sounds like they get wrapped up in the same lack of definition of "better" debates as we do here.

Now Sean, if you like using the word "better" to indicate your preference why can't you define "better"?

Peace...

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by SeanL

I have to ask...


Sycho, why do you go out of your way to try and tell everyone who likes DTS, that DD is better?

becuase they say it's better because of preference,

dts encoders have been known to add a small gain to surround channels
dts enocders modify the lfe input in somecases
when the tracks are the the same (both dolby digital and dts) people say they don't like it or "it was mixed for dolby digital"

which are we talking about in this thread, technically better or which uses a better mix? cause if it is the second, this thread is just a lump of horse shit, as it does not prove which is better, it proves which is a better mix

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Now Sean, if you like using the word "better" to indicate your preference why can't you define "better"?

Peace...

I have no desire, or need, to define "better". I do not have to have DTS on a release to be happy with it, but when there is a DTS option, I (so far) like the DTS track. Plain and simple.

[Sycho]

so it sound better yet may or maynot be technically better right, as long as there is that understanding

[Dilmo]

Originally Posted by Sycho

so it sound better yet may or maynot be technically better right, as long as there is that understanding

For crying out loud! This sounds like an OCD problem.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Sycho

becuase they say it's better because of preference,

Let me get this straight...you're making it your mission to tell people that DD is better, just because they prefer DTS? Hmmm...your head must be sore from the beating it's taking on that brick wall, huh.


All this talk of the dts encoders, sweetened mixes (which by the way, I don't buy...not in every instance anyway), codecs, etc. Again I'll ask, WHY do you go out of your way to try and tell people why they shouldn't bother with dts? Why does it chap your ass so bad?

I don't give a flip whether you listen to DD, DTS, or mono...hell, for all I care, you could listen to movies via the speakers from an old El Camino. Why should you care what audio format I like better, or for what reason I like it better?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Let me get this straight...you're making it your mission to tell people that DD is better, just because they prefer DTS? Hmmm...your head must be sore from the beating it's taking on that brick wall, huh.

I've gotta go with Sean on this one....

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

Perhaps this whole thing could be resolved by making two seperate DD vs. DTS threads.

One for preference.

One for Superior tech.


Just a thought...

[Sycho]

i shall quote myself as no one seems to have understood or cared about this important point

Originally Posted by Sycho

i think i found a perfectly logical reason for this so called "airiness".

The Dolby digital track is typically the theatrical master, which is meant to be played in a theater, with multiple loudspeakers playing back the same sound, creating a more "open" sound-field.

a simple solution, is stead of creating more ambiance in the mix, the numerous speakers will do it for you

Originally Posted by Sycho

when transfered to home video the same master is used, and if played back in your home, only one (maybe two) loudspeakers used, creating a void between the mains and the rears.

now play back the exact same mix over two surround speakers


instead of getting this
http://forums.dvdfile.com/attachment...chmentid=13151
you get this
http://forums.dvdfile.com/attachment...chmentid=13152

Originally Posted by Sycho

the dts track on the other hand is remix, probably with only one or two loud speakers for each rear, then the "void" is taken in account, thus there in no void.

so instead of having a void it seems to be more "airy", but does that make dts technically better, no.

Tell me this, if the dts track sound identical to the dolby digital track would you get the dts editions of movies still, keep in mind that there would be limited compatibly

[Dilmo]

Definite OCD.

[Sycho]

you'd better be fucking joking