Trouble understanding DTS

[kpbarc]

"Read the text after the words bad example"

And you could read my argument, do you even try to comprehend the reason I even mentioned that The Rock had 2-disks? It was that DTS should most likely be able to fit. Criterion had nothing to do with it.

“And 100% of your DTS discs have a PCM or DD track on them, because it's required”

Again, Do you even try to comprehend the reason I even mentioned most of my DTS DVDs have Dolby Digital? I was just responding to Sycho's statement which was, “The main reason I dislike DTS is because there are alot of sperate releases for the two sound tracks”

"there is so much more that goes into a DVD outside of just plopping it on a disc."

Wow!!! and all along I thought Storks delivered babies too?

Your making it sound as if I cannot even comprehend basic buisness practices, by saying stuff like,

"I think you have no idea how movie studios, or most other businesses work."

"You have no clue how this works. Let me put it in black and white"

"Actually I'm going to great effort to explain the reasons why they don't"

Do you even comprehend what I am asking you to justify Sword of Whedon?

Wait Let me answer this question for you.

NO.

You are only making arguments for THE STUDIOS. I do not want to know why THE STUDIOS care if DTS is included, your pointing out basic ideas on why it costs studios more money if they do include it.

"Bottom line- If a studio does not feel the DTS track will gain them greater sales than the costs of mixing, encoding and paying royalties on it, AFTER there's disc space left over, they're not going to do it."

Thanks for pointing out Economics 101 Cost Benefit

Again I wanted to know why those who prefer DD. YOURSELF not Warner Brothers etc... Why do you care if it is included? Put your personal reasons in “black and white” as you say, why YOU CARE if DTS is included as an option??

It seems to me that those who prefer DTS over DD, are happy when they get the choice , and Sword of Whedon actually is so against it, that he will put all of this energy into arguing against including the codec.

I would like to see this same passion against the French dubbing etc...

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by sycho

The main reason I dislike dts is because there are alot of sperate releases for the two sound tracks, maybe I would listen to it if there were not seperate release's.

Ahhhhh, so if they weren't on seperate releases, as in a disc that had both, you would listen to it?

And here I thought your sig said otherwise!

(sorry dude...ya' set yourself up for that one!)

And in all seriousness......

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Ahhhhh, so if they weren't on seperate releases, as in a disc that had both, you would listen to it?

Occationaly, I don't make an effort to. I'd said about 1 out of every 50 disc I watch, I will listem to the dts track.

[kpbarc]

You only listen to it on aproximatly 1 out of 50 discs you own that have DTS? Or is it that only about 1 out of 50 times will you make the extra effort to select DTS? Just wondering.

I actually move my speakers in the living room to set them in a certain location so when I watch a DVD it sounds good. And move them back out of the way after the movie. I guess I am not lazy when it comes to that.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by kpbarc

I actually move my speakers in the living room to set them in a certain location so when I watch a DVD it sounds good. And move them back out of the way after the movie. I guess I am not lazy when it comes to that.

No, your aren't lazy...your anal

[kpbarc]

I think I made myself look a little more particular than I really am, as if I am measuring the speaker distances and angeling them them etc....

All I really do is move the rear towers back about 2 feet so they are lined up with the side of the couch. Takes about 30 seconds, then when the movie is over just move them back so they are not in the walk way.

Iguna Man Do you have an Iguana?

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by kpbarc

I think I made myself look a little more particular than I really am, as if I am measuring the speaker distances and angeling them them etc....

All I really do is move the rear towers back about 2 feet so they are lined up with the side of the couch. Takes about 30 seconds, then when the movie is over just move them back so they are not in the walk way.

Iguna Man Do you have an Iguana?

Dude, I was just breaking your balls....that's what the was supposed to mean.

Iguana? Yes, but it's "had" not "have". Iggy was 9 or 10, a big ass male with a killer custom built tank....he got old, stopped eating, stopped letting me force feed him....so, I called the vet, had him come down with a big needle full of sleep juice and put him to sleep while his life was still decent.

(now, get back to the more important stuff...dts vs. dd!!!)

[kpbarc]

I knew you where kidding no biggie, I still wanted to clarify.

I had the exact same thing happen to my Male Iguana. He was pretty big too 5-6 feet (long tail). He was doing great for about 10-11 years then his tail got thinner. Then I woke up one morning and he didn't.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by kpbarc

I knew you where kidding no biggie, I still wanted to clarify.

I had the exact same thing happen to my Male Iguana. He was pretty big too 5-6 feet long tail. He was doing great for about 10-11 years then his tail got real thinner and I woke up one morning and he didn't. I can't believe how much cheaper they are now bought mine for 50 there about 5 bucks now since they can easily breed them in captivity.

Understood....PM coming your way shortly.....the best part is; My Iguana liked DTS over DD....can you believe it!?!?! He would do that head bop when DTS was selected...amazing!!

Sorry for derailing the thread folks...honest.

[Sword of Whedon]

It seems to me that those who prefer DTS over DD, are happy when they get the choice , and Sword of Whedon actually is so against it, that he will put all of this energy into arguing against including the codec.

I'm not arguing against it. People keep asking questions like "I don't see why it's not", and I'm telling them. You can believe me or not, that's your choice, but it's more that you're seeing me as hostile because you don't like what I'm saying.

I would like to see this same passion against the French dubbing etc...

If you think I'm arguing against DTS, you haven't seen anything when it comes to my arguements against dubbing in any form.

[kpbarc]

I was saying you are hostile by your comments like,

"You have no clue how this works. Let me put it in black and white"

"I think you have no idea how movie studios, or most other businesses work."

What makes you think I would not understand how businesses work?
other than those types of comments you are making very valid and logical points. And I would like to thank you for your views on this subject.

Peace.

[Iguana Man]

Ok, I got a sincere question here, and I honestly hope I don't offend anyone.....but (don't ya hate when someone says 'but'?)......

I believe "most" people will not hear a difference, make that a 'substantial' difference, between DTS and DD unless they have a mid to high end system. The nuances can be subtle at times, given the disc, so unless it's on a "good" or "above mid-fi" system you just ain't gonna hear it. For me, I never went into it with one is better than the other...my receiver is old by current standards, yet I heard a tremendous improvement over 'most' DD tracks back then and now...that's why I'm sold on DTS.....more times than not - to me - it sounds better.

Honest....that's how I feel about this (and please take this as my opinion only!)



(and where the hell is Tomdkat?.... )

[kpbarc]

How much money is in mid to high quality system? $5,000-7,000? Including the TV too? I always wounder this. I think my system is pretty good but on this thread some people with big bucks might think it is crap? Others with a more humble system might thing it is awsome?

Also, I do understand with technology over time the equipment gets cheaper. I remember when my friend bought one of the first DVD players for $700, which is worth about 60 bucks now.?

And I know I can notice a increase in what I would define as a higher quality with DTS over DD.

What can I say

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by kpbarc

How much money is in mid to high quality system? $5,000-7,000? Including the TV too?

That's a good question (but the TV has nothing to do with it)......and I honestly don't know that there is a definitive answer.

My point was, that given the objectivity when it comes to this stuff, it may be easier to decipher the nuances betweeen the two with a "better" system. "Better" is obviously subjective, but I think that for normal ears you may hear a difference more readily than with, lets say, a HTIB?

I knew my comments would potentially cause some debate, and I know everybody hears at different "levels", but honestly....for me, and my room (7-9K including a leather couch, nice carpet, 4 game consoles, paint, etc...) I can hear a difference whereas before I could not. Before meaning different speakers, AV receiver, etc..

Again, this is just me and my older ears....

[kpbarc]

Yeah I asked about the TV for video quality, which had nothing to do with DTS.

But as far as quality and price goes, one thing I have noticed is, the higher up in in quality you go, you need to spend more and more money to gain only a little more of an difference in quality.

Keith

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

plus inferior channel seperation (DD combines channels above 10khz @ 384kbps and above 15khz @ 448kbps - frequencies that are both in the human hearing range. - this is why reviewers find dts surround to often be more "open" or "airy").

So let me count the number of ways you are wrong
Dolby Digital does not combine all channel above 10khz @ 384kbps and 15khz @ 448kbps. it uses 16 streams for the coupling (for 384kbps) and each stream has a sound that is indepentdent of the rest of the high frequencies, so it can achive true discrete channels in the high end,

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_52a.pdf
http://webapp.etsi.org/action/PU/200...14v010101p.pdf

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Originally Posted by Ruined

plus inferior channel seperation (DD combines channels above 10khz @ 384kbps and above 15khz @ 448kbps - frequencies that are both in the human hearing range. - this is why reviewers find dts surround to often be more "open" or "airy").

Originally Posted by sycho

Dolby Digital does not combine all channel above 10khz @ 384kbps and 15khz @ 448kbps. it uses 16 streams for the coupling

Yes, it does combine channels, in fact my figures are accurate. Does it combine every facet of both channels all the time? No. But it does combine them. Are you aware of what "couple" means?

Main Entry: cou·ple
Pronunciation: 'k&-p&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cou·pled; cou·pling /-p(&-)li[ng]/
transitive senses

1 a : to connect for consideration together b : to join for combined effect
2 a : to fasten together : LINK b : to bring (two electric circuits) into such close proximity as to permit mutual influence

(for 384kbps) and each stream has a sound that is indepentdent of the rest of the high frequencies, so it can achive true discrete channels in the high end

Unfortunately as A/B comparisons have pointed out, this is not the case in reality. Dolby's channel combining/coupling/whatever at high frequencies has a detrimental impact on the discreteness of the surround field - while it is still "discrete" to an extent, it is not truly 100% discrete. Similarly how you could claim an MP3 encoded with "Joint Stereo" is a discrete 2-channel file, when it is not 100% discrete and the channel seperation suffers because of it. Again, this is why DTS is often cited as being more open or airy in the surrounds, with the Dolby soundtrack being more "collapsed" in comparison. This is because the DTS soundtrack, simply, is more "discrete" than DD, and hence you get a better stereo effect in the surrounds. Not just in one A/B comparison, but time and time and time again. This indicates a trend in the DD codec producing less discrete sound than the DTS soundtrack as the same artifact is noted again and again no matter what the movie or soundtrack master. Therefore it cannot be simply a difference of the master, and we know of a weakness in the DD codec which logically would account for this real world phenomena.

The DTS home codec has a similar feature, but it is disabled at the 754kbps and 1509kbps bitrates because it has a negative impact on the fidelity of the sound with resulting diminished channel seperation - and DTS' philosophy never needed to be designed around sacrificing quality for efficiency, as its original theatrical format was stored on CDs (1411kbps) as opposed to on a bandwidth-restricted medium such as the film itself like DD (320kbps).

P.S. -- posting links without understanding wtf they mean isn't helpful to your case

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

posting links without understanding wtf they mean isn't helpful to your case

7.4 Channel Coupling 79
7.4 .1 Overview 79
7.4 .2 Sub-Band Structure for Coupling 80
7.4 .3 Coupling Coordinate Format 81

if you look at the on dts, you will find out dts does a similar, remember similar thing on all frequencies. dts uses sub-band ADPCM on all frequencies, Dolby digital only does sub-band on above 15khz(448kbps) 10khz(384kbps).
anyhow my main point was the Dolby digital has 16 sub-bands for the high frequency coupling, any of which can be directed to any channel with full discreteness

[Ruined]

You seem to be confusing sub-band ADPCM coding and high frequency channel coupling which are two completely seperate things (which is what I assumed based on your posting of those links); in brief, each seperate channel of the DTS signal has its own sub-band ADPCM process which gets allocated bits based on the content of each sub-band -- simplified even more basically within each channel of the DTS signal, the audio is divided up into parts (sub-bands) and the encoder then decides what the minimum amount of bits needed for each sub-band to prevent artifacting is required, and allocates those bits to the sub-band. This does not mean DTS is doing high frequency channel coupling at all, because there is no combining of the bands here, it is simply the process by which it does global bit management - or simplified the process how it determines how much of the 754/1509kbps to give to each part of each channel for maximum sound quality. On the other hand, Dolby Digital will combine bands above the cutoff frequencies instead of keeping them seperate across the entire frequency range like DTS does. This is where the "channel coupling" comes in, which DD does and DTS does not.

Again, the DTS codec would only use high frequency channel coupling similar to Dolby's at very low bitrates (not on DVD) - it is disabled at 754kbps and 1509kbps. Like I said above, the DTS codec is capable of it and it is certainly part of the DTS codec's specs (not arguing that), but it is not utilized at any bitrate on DVD (no commercially available DTS5.1 encoder allows channel coupling to be switched on) because it is unnecessary for the bitrates presented and would harm the overall fidelity of the signal. Dolby uses channel coupling because it is necessary for sound without artifacting at its lower bitrates when there is a lot of shit going on - if DTS were made available at a bitrate similar to DD, it would have to activate its channel coupling feature as well. Thankfully we don't have to worry about this due to the large size of DVD. If DTS were to say, get into the HDTV market, then we would probably see a lower bitrate DTS and an activation of the channel coupling feature in its codec. As it stands now though, there is no available DTS hardware or software that encodes or contains channel coupling similar to DD's.

(note: the PS2 videogame console's custom dts software encoder for realtime in-game surround might be an exception, the details on its tech specs in terms of what the encoding parameters are are not widely available)

If you are interested in how Dolby's channel coupling works, here is a simple breakdown:

1. Dolby Digital encoder says "oh shit, we are out of bits, what do we do"

2. Dolby Digital says "ah! channel coupling!"

3. Starting in the 18-20+khz range (depending on bitrate), Dolby Digital combines filter outputs and encodes them as a single value representing all the channels.

4. Dolby works down the frequency chain and continues to couple bands until it is okay in terms of bits. Meaning that it will combine highest frequency bands first, then go all, or part, of the way down to the cutoff limits of 15khz for 448kbps and 10khz for 384kbps depending on how badly it is bit starved. This removes high frequency channel seperation down to a certain point, depending on how badly the DD encoder is bit starved.

5. The DD decoder will attempt to restore high frequency channel seperation by allocating the coupled bands back to the seperate channels based on the overall power density in the seperate bands, attempting to make the high frequencies proportional to other data in the bands. However, though this theoretically should provide significant high frequency channel seperation, in practice it doesn't sound as good as keeping the bands seperate from the start like DTS does - as noted by many reviewers in their descriptions of DTS' superior channel seperation and soundfield compared to DD's time and time again.

[Sycho]

You seem to be confusing sub-band ADPCM coding and high frequency channel coupling

no, I am not. i was using examples so normal people could understand.

dts is a good codec, don't get me wrong
but, Dolby digital ac3 is an awesome codec
if somehow there was a 768kbps Dolby digital ac3 track, would it sound better than the dts, fucking rights.
you also don't not seen know why ac3 was created, do you, to save bandwidth and not compromise quality

no ac3 does not just "mix" all high frequencies into one channel, there is directional information for the decoder to separate the sounds

hers a good one

Originally Posted by http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video_2/gonein60seconds.html

This disc includes one of the most impressive 5.1 soundtracks I've ever had in my whole collection

funny gone in 60 seconds is a 384kbps per second and guess what so is the matrix!

Name one DVD where you noticed the "channel coupling" in action, and no fucking comparing it to dts.

regarding my last post, dts uses sub-band on all frequencies all the time, Dolby only uses sub-band on the high frequencies and uses transform coding on the rest.

as noted by many reviewers in their descriptions of DTS' superior channel seperation and soundfield compared to DD's time and time again.

the fucking reviews are brainwashed, at my Co-Op placement i tricked one of the workers there. took a DVD with both Dolby digital and dts soundtracks, played the DD5.1 then dts5.1 and finally turned up the DD5.1, which was best, in his opinion, the louder DD5.1

[Sycho]

Originally Posted by Ruined

DTS' philosophy never needed to be designed around sacrificing quality for efficiency, as its original theatrical format was stored on CDs (1411kbps) as opposed to on a bandwidth-restricted medium such as the film itself like DD (320kbps).

dts in the cinema is 815kbps

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by sycho

no, I am not. i was using examples so normal people could understand.

dts is a good codec, don't get me wrong

It's the one that delivers the best sounding and discrete signal with the least amount pre and post-processing, as we can see from its whitepapers and A/B listening comparisons.

but, Dolby digital ac3 is an awesome codec

If you are bandwidth restricted, yes.

if somehow there was a 768kbps Dolby digital ac3 track, would it sound better than the dts, fucking rights.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. DD is restricted to 640kbps in general and 448kbps on DVD. I doubt it would sound better if it went through all the pre and post processing a DD signal does now, though.

you also don't not seen know why ac3 was created, do you, to save bandwidth and not compromise quality

Unfortunately you can't save that much bandwidth and not compromise quality - channel coupling is a good example of a compromise DD makes.

no ac3 does not just "mix" all high frequencies into one channel, there is directional information for the decoder to separate the sounds

Read the explanation I posted earlier in the thread, it's very accurate and easy to understand on how the channel coupling works, when it works, and to what extent on Dolby Digital.

Name one DVD where you noticed the "channel coupling" in action, and no fucking comparing it to dts.

As I have stated before, in general Dolby Digital seems to have worse channel seperation than DTS over any number of DVDs. This is confirmed by A/B comparisons with similar results over a wide spectrum of DVDs by a wide range of reviewers. There is no one bad DVD, it is a general problem with Dolby Digital. I'm not saying that Dolby Digital sounds bad - I'm just saying DTS sounds better. You may have a DVD that sounds awesome in DD, but that same DVD might sound even better in DTS.

regarding my last post, dts uses sub-band on all frequencies all the time, Dolby only uses sub-band on the high frequencies and uses transform coding, i think, on the rest.

You still seem to be confused. There is no problem with using sub-band ADPCM coding on all frequencies all the time. The problem is with combining/coupling those bands, which Dolby Digital does and DTS does not. Sub-band ADPCM coding is just a compression method - DTS keeps all bands and channels seperate, Dolby Digital does not. This is the problem with DD & channel coupling.

the fucking reviews are brainwashed, at my Co-Op placement i tricked one of the workers there. took a DVD with both Dolby digital and dts soundtracks, played the DD5.1 then dts5.1 and finally turned up the DD5.1, which was best, in his opinion, the louder DD5.1

Here come the conspiracy theories

Again, look at trends. DTS wins.