Trouble understanding DTS

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Besweet is primarily an audio transcoder, not encoder, and I'm not sure it offers the options or quality of a full-on AC3 encoder. It also doesn't support DTS.

If you were to download besweet rightnow, you could encode 5.1 AC3's out of the box, so to speak

Originally Posted by Ruined

How about I throw another wrench into it. You say you do like DTS for its DTS ES 6.1 channel discrete mode. What if I were to tell you that DTS6.1 discrete wasn't truly discrete? (in a way its really not)

Ok go on, but remember, dts-ES discrete will add the surround back to the surround left and surround right channels upon encoding, and them during EDIT:decoding will remove them, while adding some noise/artifacts
IE:
SL+SB=SLt,
SR+SB=SRt,
SB,
thats how the stream is encoded,
when decoded,
it will
SB,
SLt-SB=SL,
SRt-SB=SR,
But remember that SL+SR will have artifacts, as will SB, and the artifacts will not be the same, so subtracting SB from SLt and SRt will introduce even more artifacts

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by sycho

Ok go on, but remember, dts-ES discrete will add the surround back to the surround left and surround right channels upon encoding, and them during encoding will remove them, while adding some noise/artifacts

For a guy that's too lazy to select a DTS track (just kidding!), can you please explain this further for me?

I don't get how you add something and subtract something while doing the same thing...."encoding".

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I don't get how you add something and subtract something while doing the same thing...."encoding".

I'll refer you to the edit:

dts-ES discrete will add the surround back to the surround left and surround right channels upon encoding, and them during EDIT:decoding will remove them, while adding some noise/artifacts

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

DTS ES 6.1 is discrete, that is why there is DTSES 6.1 discrete and DTSES 6.1 Matrix. Why would there be 2 formats unless one of them truly is discrete, DTS claims it is discrete so why do you not believe them, do you have some sort of inside track into DTS' technology?

sycho was almost going in the right direction, but not quite.

Think of it this way. DTS ES Discrete is backwards compatible with DTS 5.1 and DTS ES non-discrete. In order to be backwards compatible, it sacrifices true discreteness. Why? Because older DTS decoders that do not support DTS ES Discrete cannot read the additional rear discrete channel; instead, DTS puts flags in the stream for the decoder to ignore it. This leaves some problems.

Let's look at the channels:

For a truly discrete and ideal 6.1 mix you'd have:
1: Left
2: Center
3: Right
4: Left Surround
5: Rear
6: Right Surround
.1: LFE

Now, a non-discrete 6ch mix (i.e. Dolby 5.1 EX or DTS 5.1 ES) has:
1: Left
2: Center
3: Right
4: Left Surround + Rear
5: Right Surround + Rear
.1: LFE

Now, the "Rear" information in the surround channels is very simply the sound information that is in-phase between the two channels. To extract that information, non-discrete/matrix technology basically does the same thing Dolby Prologic does to get a center channel. However, if you've had experience with Dolby Prologic, you know that not all of the information can be extracted, and some is left behind in the original channels. This causes "channel bleeding" as many call it, and is why you hear some dialogue in the mains instead of exclusively in the center channel with Dolby Prologic. So, while non-discrete decoders can produce a rear channel, some of the information that was meant for the rear channel is left in the surround channels when the rear is extracted.

Now, look back above at the ideal 6.1 mix. This is not how DTS 6.1 Discrete is encoded. For backwards compatility, DTS6.1 is encoded as follows:

1: Left
2: Center
3: Right
4: Left Surround + Rear
5: Rear
6: Right Surround + Rear
.1: LFE

When a DTS 5.1 decoder encounters this stream, it ignores channel 5 in my example (Rear) and plays back the surrounds with the rear mixed in. When a DTS ES non-discrete decoder encounters this stream, it also ignores channel 5 (Rear), and extracts the rear channel from channels 4/6, which creates a rear but with some bleeding into the surrounds. When a DTS 6.1 decoder encounters this stream, it reads all channels, however it cannot play them all back as-is, otherwise there would be duplicate information in the surrounds (4/6) and the Rear (5). So it ends up extracting the rear information from the surrounds (4/6) much in the same way DTS-ES non-discrete would, throws it away, and uses Channel 5 as the rear. However, some of the rear information is still left in the surrounds as the method is not perfect, and hence there are still matrix-like channel-bleeding artifacts in DTS Discrete 6.1.

In order for DTS Discrete 6.1 to truly be 100% discrete and backwards compatible with DTS5.1, it would need to have 8.1 channels:

1: Left
2: Center
3: Right
4: Left Surround + Rear (for DTS5.1/DTS-ES NonDisc)
5: Left Surround (for DTS 6.1)
6: Rear (for DTS 6.1)
7: Right Surround + Rear (for DTS5.1/DTS-ES NonDisc)
8: Right Surround (for DTS 6.1)
.1: LFE

In this case, DTS 6.1 discrete would have two pure surround channels to work with that don't have any rear info to extract (5,8), while DTS5.1/ES NonDisc can ignore channels 5, 6, and 8, and use 4&7 for surrounds/rear. Unfortunately, 8.1 channels is not feasible at 754 kbps using DTS' current encoding method (though it is possible using a higher bitrate or different featureset in the codec), so DTS 6.1 discrete ends up being not truly discrete. Though it's still better than a matrixed sound format, it's not really a discrete one in the rear, either.

Then again, it's my opinion that anything more than 5.1 channels in the home is overkill and often makes the surround field worse instead of better due to the placement problems adding rears causes. I feel that 5.1 EX/6.1's true use (and what Dolby/THX originally stated it was for) is for large (wide) movie theaters to give the center section good surround action without deafening the side sections. IMO, the only reason 5.1 EX made it to the home market (despite Dolby claiming it would stay theatrical-only) is because they saw an opportunity for money - and also to one-up DTS - who at the time was gaining ground on Dolby but did not have a 6.1 discrete (or even non-discrete) model ready - so Dolby went for it. Kind of ended up backfiring for Dolby when DTS released their "discrete" variant, but it did help resurrect THX in the home market somewhat.

[Iguana Man]

I must admit that alot of the info here is just barely graspable (to me that is ), and I somehow doubt that poor ol' cftrock expected all of this, but did I tell you 8-9 times outta 10 I prefer DTS?

WHY?????

I have played enough movies (sober too!) that I know what my volume levels are set at. I know my "prefered" listening levels. So I know if the DTS track is louder, and as a result, I turn it down a notch or two. Or, if the DD5.1 isn't cutting it, I turn it up a notch or two. So assuming (and I know this is a stretch) that my perceived listening levels are "matched" when listening to movies with DTS and DD5.1........Why does the DTS win out damn near every time?

That's what I want to understand about DTS......

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Why does the DTS win out damn near every time?

That's what I want to understand about DTS......

It's the master. Studios take the time to A/B compare masters for a movie and purposely encode the crappier one in DD and the better one in DTS. Or, if there is only one master they encode it in DTS, then degrade it somehow before encoding it in Dolby Digital. Or the studios sweeten up the master before they encode it in DTS so they can make DD look bad. It's a conspiracy, man.

*or*

Your simpleton "I use the volume knob" level matching is not suitable to compare the two adequately. You must do an ABX double-blind test, with one hand tied your back and blindfolded by Ms. Helga who will also be switching the audio material for you (and maybe doing other stuff too if you get lucky)

*or*

You are being deceived by your ears and mind, and they truly sound the same in the end no matter what you hear. Sorry, you are just plain wrong.



P.S. -- DUlBy D1gital IS teh R0xOZ! DtS is teh Suck1! s0ny DVP-S7000 & SonY STR-DA90ES 4evr!1!!!!one

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Sorry, you are just plain wrong.

Hmphhhh - I'll tell what I was plain wrong about.....I was wrong to come back to this post instead of watching my Orange Ruffie (fish) dinner get smoked in the oven! Now my whole place smells like........well, it smells like Ms. Helga!!!!

So, anyone else care to comment on why I prefer DTS?

(not like I have anything better to do....like eat! )

[Sycho]

When a DTS 5.1 decoder encounters this stream, it ignores channel 5 in my example (Rear) and plays back the surrounds with the rear mixed in. When a DTS ES non-discrete decoder encounters this stream, it also ignores channel 5 (Rear), and extracts the rear channel from channels 4/6, which creates a rear but with some bleeding into the surrounds. When a DTS 6.1 decoder encounters this stream, it reads all channels, however it cannot play them all back, otherwise there would be duplicate information in the surrounds (4/6) and the Rear (5). So it ends up extracting the rear information from the surrounds (4/6) much in the same way DTS-ES non-discrete would, throws it away, and uses Channel 5 as the rear. However, quite a bit of the rear information is still left in the surrounds as the method is not perfect, and hence there are still channel-bleeding artifacts in DTS Discrete 6.1.

are you saying that dts-ES discrete uses channel steering to remove the surround back from the surround left and surround right? If so, thats not how it works

So, anyone else care to comment on why I prefer DTS?

because every where you go you hear,

DTS is better then Dolby Digital

No one person can say that, anywhere, my repiles are based on moslty technical aspect, so don't say that I can't say which is better, I'm not, I'm telling you which is more advanced, that is Dolby Digital, scaliblty has nothing to do with a codec being advanced

[snipsnapsappy]

My test disc for the DD vs DTS debate has always been Lethal Weapon 3. It may not be a reference disc, but in the opening credits, the music sounds extremely different in both formats.

In the DD track, the music sounds like it is coming from behind the front speakers. It does not even sound like normal stereo.

In the DTS track, the music fills the room with sound. Eric Clapton's singing and guitar seem to float above the listener.

No matter who is responsible for the mastering of both formats, whatever DTS is doing, they are doing it right. DTS almost always comes out the winner with me. So much so that I will never even touch a DD track on a disc with DTS, unless I want to test out a scene.

Whether or not it is the bit rate, the mastering, or some sort of conspiracy, DTS sounds superior in many instances, while in other instances sounds about the same as Dolby.

I am not talking about volume differences, I am talking about an often completely superior sonic performance.

I can hear complete differences between MP3, CD, SACD and DVD-Audio. Sometimes this is caused by the mastering process, but most often it is caused by the higher bit rate. However, on poorly recorded discs like Disturbd: Believe DVD-A, I can not hear much difference between MP3 and DVD-A stereo versions.

So a higher bit rate can improve a recording or it can make it the same. A lower bit rate will either sond inferior or will sound the same.

But when I am at home, I always choose the DVD-A or SACD version over the MP3 or CD version because I know it will sound better or the same, but not worse. The same with DTS and DD

I will therefore always play the higher bit rate version whenever possible.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by sycho

because every where you go you hear..."Dts is better then Dolby Digital"

Whay gives? I can't seem to include Sycho's post along with what he put in quotes? Well, forgive me, but I added it anyways.....

Now, your assumption may be true for a lot of people, but I can assure you it doesn't apply to me. You see, I came across DTS before "hearing" and reading what you said above (and all these debates)....honest. I simply started using it when I saw it on one of my rentals because I was surfing the menus in a non-lazy ( ) way. I also tried different surround modes while I was at it (ie: Cinema, Music, Action, etc...). I've come to use Standard mode (DD5.1) and DTS when available along with Direct mode for Stereo music listening. I'm a sceptical person at heart so I don't believe I brainwashed myself into thinking DTS sounded better 8 or 9 times outta 10. Especially given the fact that I never got into this type discussion until after evaluating it myself.

Soooo, whatta ya think of those apples Mr. McIntosh ?

[Sycho]

I forgive you.

I was surfing the menus in a non-lazy way

I have feelings you know, I not just a lazy audio junkie.

Soooo, whatta ya think of those apples Mr. McIntosh ?

Yummers

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Whay gives? I can't seem to include Sycho's post along with what he put in quotes? Well, forgive me, but I added it anyways.....

When you quote someone, the quotes they have in their post don't appear. You'll have to scroll down past the message composition area and select the text you want to quote and handle the sub-quoting manually.

Peace...

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

No matter who is responsible for the mastering of both formats, whatever DTS is doing, they are doing it right. DTS almost always comes out the winner with me. So much so that I will never even touch a DD track on a disc with DTS, unless I want to test out a scene.

That's fine, but that's your preference and doesn't necessarily mean dts is "better". For example, look at the first dts release of Jurassic Park on DVD. The dts audio basically "sucked". Why? Because the audio track wasn't properly mastered and was missing information. Once Universal got dts themselves to re-mix the audio track, the audio sounded more along the lines of what people expected. The reason I bring this up is to point out just because a dts audio track exists, that doesn't mean it will be a "good" one.

Peace...

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

That's fine, but that's your preference and doesn't necessarily mean dts is "better".......The reason I bring this up is to point out just because a dts audio track exists, that doesn't mean it will be a "good" one.

Peace...

Agreed, however...."Does DTS sound better to me " My answer is 'usually', 'more times than not', yes.

I think that counts towards "the trends" as Ruined mentioned but as all of us know....if we like something, we want to be assured it is in fact better, and that is what I think Sycho is trying to say (at least in part).

Will the question of which is "better" be answered? For me, who knows because half of all that techno stuff above is beyond me. I will say though that I lean towards DTS based on my own 'simpleton' tests.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

if we like something, we want to be assured it is in fact better

This is a great point as I think this can impair judgment some. For example, I'm sure some who spent thousands of dollars on progressive scan DVD players took pride in "knowing" they owned "the best", only to find a $200 Panasonic DVD-RP82 would produce a progressive video image superior to their player.

I think the big thing people are missing is no one is saying dts "sucks" even though people will debate it being "the best".

Will the question of which is "better" be answered? For me, who knows because half of all that techno stuff above is beyond me. I will say though that I lean towards DTS based on my own 'simpleton' tests.

That's cool... and even if there was some "scientific" test that 'proved' (somehow) that DD was in fact "better" than dts, would that cause you to suddenly change your listening preferences? Probably not and you would go on enjoying dts audio as much as you do now.

For the record, the hypothetical test I mention above does NOT exist, as far as I know.

Peace...

[Robert George]

For example, look at the first dts release of Jurassic Park on DVD. The dts audio basically "sucked". Why? Because the audio track wasn't properly mastered and was missing information. Once Universal got dts themselves to re-mix the audio track, the audio sounded more along the lines of what people expected.

Not exactly.

As a matter of fact, Universal has been encoding their own DTS tracks from the beginning. Actually, it was (is?) DVCC (Digital Video Compression Center) that did Uni's mastering of both video and audio. I believe they go by a different name now, but as far as I know, it is the same company. As an aside, I have had a private tour of DVCC a couple of years ago, only a few months after the first JP release. I quizzed them about the disc, and the subsequent remastering they had just found out had been ordered by Universal Home Video. I did not get many specifics (they won't discuss studio politics), but what we believe happened is this...

The first release of Jurassic Park used the theatrical soundtrack master. Bear in mind this was the first film released wide in DTS 5.1. 5.1 mixing was then a very new art. The theatrical mix had much of the low bass in the main channels with only some low effects in the LFE (Low Frequency Effects, get it?). Many people found the bass to be lacking because many of them were running their controllers with "large" mains when they should have been using the internal crossover for "small" mains. Hence, some of the low bass was lost to speakers that simply could not reproduce it. Add to that a mix that did not have to low bass "juiced" for home theater and you have a recipe for disaster.

The disaster came in the form of outraged consumers claiming the DVD was botched. Where was the "room shaking" bass they remembered for the laserdisc release? I have heard that even DTS wanted the disc remastered because a DTS track that did not meed a certain expectation wasn't very good for their reputation, a reputation they had begun to cultivate.

The result was a remastered DVD using the 5.1 soudtrack master that had been created for the laserdisc release which, incidently, was not reflective of the original theatrical track. But, it was what was expected so the same doctored soundtrack that had been put out on laserdisc lived again on DVD. Now, I'm not saying DTS doctored the soundtrack originally. As I said, Universal has been doing their own audio. But, someone somewhere decided JP should sound a certain way on laserdisc that it did not sound in the theater.

The real injustice was not remastering JP on DVD, but not remastering both versions. The decision was made to only remaster the DTS version. Yet another example of stacking the deck for DTS by Universal. Another example is U-571 (I know that title was mentioned earlier). DTS-philes like to point to that as an example of DTS' superiority. Well, the LFE channel on the DTS track is 4 dB louder than the LFE on the Dolby track. Every other channel measures the same except the LFE. What does that mean? When there is an explosion, the DTS has more "punch" and is therefore more impressive. But, when checking for level matching, unless one is checking a point where the LFE kicks in, one will think the levels are matched and the DTS "just has more impact".

These are but a few example of why subjective listening to DVD is useless in making in valid assessment of the performance of the actual codecs.

[mighty mint]

My simpleton test comes with listening to not only the bass but the high end. I find little difference in the midrange but I do find the bass not to be as "boomy" as the DD...while sometimes it is not as "loud" as the bass in the DD it seems more tighter and less obvious. The high ends I find extremely clear, some don't like DTS because the highs can seem piercing. I just like it. I haven't come across any DD track that I have preferred over the DTS mix. I could be brainwashed but I know what my ears like and my sub really tells the difference. This thread does make me wonder about the mixing being stacked...even if it is...I still love it

p.s. and the new JP DTS soundtrack does kick @$$ believe me!

[Sword of Whedon]

but I know what my ears like and my sub really tells the difference

That's where most DTS-Philes claim superiority. They like their subwoofer, they have 4 SVSes or whatever, and their judgement of any soundtrack is how much their ass rattles.

In my personal tests, most people can't tell the difference between DD and DTS, and their opinions are solely based on the mix. They chose LOTR:FOTR theatrical on the DD over the DTS of the EE. Why? Because the bass is blown out. They pick the DD on Blade 2 over the DTS's more natural mix, same thing with The Rock.

DTS does offer some advantages in music titles, better reproduction of the high range and subtlety. However most people like it because that little red light makes them feel elite and special, not because they actually hear anything different aside from volume.

[SidcupMartin]

I was about to say the same thing... it's because of this:

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Another example is U-571 (I know that title was mentioned earlier). DTS-philes like to point to that as an example of DTS' superiority. Well, the LFE channel on the DTS track is 4 dB louder than the LFE on the Dolby track. Every other channel measures the same except the LFE. What does that mean? When there is an explosion, the DTS has more "punch" and is therefore more impressive. But, when checking for level matching, unless one is checking a point where the LFE kicks in, one will think the levels are matched and the DTS "just has more impact".

If I understand you correctly, the DD & DTS versions of U571 will be more identical sounding simply by lowering my sub 4 db? And if so, I should hear no real differences between them?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Ruined

>Originally Posted by Iguana Man
>Why does the DTS win out damn near every time?
>That's what I want to understand about DTS......

It's the master. Studios take the time to A/B compare masters for a movie and purposely encode the crappier one in DD and the better one in DTS. Or, if there is only one master they encode it in DTS, then degrade it somehow before encoding it in Dolby Digital. Or the studios sweeten up the master before they encode it in DTS so they can make DD look bad. It's a conspiracy, man.

Originally Posted by Robert George

The real injustice was not remastering JP on DVD, but not remastering both versions. The decision was made to only remaster the DTS version. Yet another example of stacking the deck for DTS by Universal. Another example is U-571...

I'm available for psychic readings on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursday afternoons