Dolbly Digital or DTS?

[ShapeShifter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HornEd:

Oh, and that rumor that

dts

is any less dramatic with the speakers set to "SMALL" is just not true. That only happens when you have a sub that can't measure up to what

dts

can dish out. I'm sure

Boa

or

The Ear(s)

doesn't find

dts

wimpy with their subs either!

I will always buy a

dts

version of a movie even if it is a couple of bucks more... it's what my audience has voted for! -HornED

---

HE - Well said and a good read! I'm firmly entrenched in the all small category. I've passed of several movies and concert discs due to the lack of DTS versions.

------------------

"KLIPSCH IS MUSIC"f>

[rennocneb]

The DTS sound that is included in many of todays DVDs(754kbps) is sub par to dolby digital in many ways it rolls off sharply at about 15khz. The reason many people report it sounding better is that DTS is approximately 6db louder than dolby at the same volume setting on your reciever. The louder of any two things whether it be codecs or speakers sounds better to us. DTS at 1.4mbit on the other hand is virtually in distingushible from Dolby Digital at 448kbps I have read many articles were very qualified audiophiles were unable to tell any difference in the two. So all the claims about DTS sounding better because of its high bit rate are false it is just less efficent however often times great care is taken in mixing the DTS versions meaning the sound is better but DTS has nothing to due with it.

[boa12]

ren, do u mean our ears usually roll off sharpley at 15khz? anyway beyond the loudness factor dts in general just sounds more dynamic than dolby in general.

more like a feel. just my ears.

752kbs vs 448kps audio means more info right? or doesn't it matter if the sampling rate's the same 48k?

i still haven't grasped the digital tech stuff. just got this new queen dvd-audio that also is dts 96/24 & pcm 96/24 for regular dvd-video player. it displays on my dvd-video player at 1504kbps & the pcm 96/24 at 4512kbps & 24bit.

use the digital connection to my b&k pre/pro but it still shows a sampling rate of 48k. expected that to run at 96k since i have those dacs. been tryin to figure out why not. anyway it sounds great, but like u say a lot's in the mix.

so why does dvd-audio sound so much better (or does it by the audio pros?)? because of the higher actual sampling rates? so is dolby & dts suppose to sound pretty much the same because the sample rate is runnin at 48k for both anyway?

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[rennocneb]

The sampling rate really effects the maximum frequency response at 48khz you get response to 24khz at 96khz to 48khz basically you can record frequencys up to half the sampling rate. Yes dolby and dts use the same sampling rate but the sound for these depend more on the compression technology not the sampling rate. They are almost in distingushable from each other at 1.4mbit for dts and 448kbps for dolby. And i meant that the dts codec rolls off sharply above 15khz when recording at 754bps. As for your b&k showing 48khz when watching that dvd it is more than likely because most all dvd players down sample all outgoing digital to 48khz. Why some say the recording industry is to blame not sure but there are a few players that will output 96khz but im not sure of any right now.

[Lynxfx]

Whenever I tried to compare a DTS track to a DD track on the same DVD I've almost always found the DTS track to have better speaker seperation especially when it pans around the sound field. Maybe it is just me.

[InventiveAudio.com]

DTS wins every time. DD is a very good close second. I would love to hear how the newer formats compare: SACD and DVD-A.

[boa12]

thanks ren. i guess i'll assume (since i don't have it) that dvd-audio then does actually sample at 96k or higher so those higher freq of 48khz must be adding something. or what's your take of the reported superior sound of dvd-audio & sacd.

& u said dts runs at higher bit rates because of less effiency. efficiency of what variables? sorry i've tried searching on the net for this but have had trouble finding info in the layman's terms.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[rennocneb]

Both Dolby Digital and DTS start with the same audio signal and then perform a mathmatical algorithim on it to compress it. Dolbys alogorithim is just better using less space for the same quality of sound as DTS thats what i mean by less efficent. Also everyone seems to note how DTS sounds a little better again its because they are not doing a level matched controlled comparasion. Dolby Digital is normally about 6bb quiter than DTS at the same volumne setting. Also the DTS tracks are often doctored up to help them sound better. Whereas the Dolby Tracks are pretty much what you hear in the theater. On DVD-A vs SACD i havent set down for an A, B comparasion i will tell you that i personally own a SACD player but not a DVD-A player yet

[boa12]

ren, thanks again much. by george i think i finally got it. because dts is not compressed it runs at higher bit rates to play the same quantity of sound information as dolby. iow, higher bit rates do not equate to more audio information reported to the processor for sampling. the quantity of info is resolution, as in the 24 in 96/24. so what's the resolution of most dvd-video disks then? higher than 16 bit i magine?

see one would think that higher bit rates equates to more info & therefore more detail. guess the 24 bit in the 96/24 comes into play here somewhere. iow, a dts 96/24 dvd-video w/ it's higher resolution could produce a more dynamic sound even if the sampling rate is still at 48khz. higher resolution equals more info/detail.

i was really talking about how sacd translates into better sound than a dvd-video. because of higher sampling rate (speed)=higher freq extension and higher resolution (bit quantity)= more dynamics.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 05-08-2002 at 04:59 PM

[boa12]

ok just to get this straight, everything else equal, w/ a dts 5.1 96/24 recording & audio bit rate of 150kbps & a dolby 5.1 runnin at about 45kbs, that difference of 105kb is just totally unnecessary info that does nothing to make for improved audio sound or sensation? isn't that 105kb just lost w/ dolby?

actually dts has rebuttals to dolby's critique of dts as above in those pdf files at http://www.dtsonline.com/consumer/index.html

i realize these are like ford & GM evaluating each other, but one thing interesting dts points out is that dolby combines channels above 15khz & down low. that may be why many report dts to be much more dynamic on the highs & lows.

http://www.dtsonline.com/consumer/index.html

------------------

My Home Systems Page

This message has been edited by boa12 on 05-09-2002 at 12:33 AM

[edwardre]

quote:

---

Oh, and that rumor that dts is any less dramatic with the speakers set to "SMALL" is just not true. That only happens when you have a sub that can't measure up to what dts can dish out. I'm sure Boa or The Ear(s) doesn't find dts wimpy with their subs either!

---

H-Ed - It is with the greatest respect that I disagree in part with this conjecture, at least as it pertains to my particular setup. In my experience, it wasn't that DTS was "less dramatic", just extremely 'brassy' or 'tinny' with speakers set to small. True, my KSW200 sub is a tad bit on the 'whimpy' side, and thanks to your offline input, the SVS is the next upgrade pending authorization from the CFO, however, I would think that if the sub was inadequate for DTS, it would be inadequate for DD5.1. That was not my experience. In a nutshell, with speakers set to small, DTS was lacking bravado and DD5.1 sounded as bass heavy as with all the speakers set to large.

Which brings us back to bass management. Wouldn't it be true that without bass management and your speakers set to small, you would lose bass from wherever your 'small' setting cutoff as it is not routed to your sub? In any event, all I can tell you is that setting the speakers to large made a huge difference in the amount of bass heard and felt during DTS playback. Will be interesting to re-evaluate this onve the SVS is secured!

Oh, also while I'm thinking about it, I just got a DVD-Audio player (yipee!!). Now I KNOW that DVD-Audio does not have bass management, that's one of the knocks on it as I understand it. In order to realize 96 or 192 resolution audio, you must use the 'ext in' as the digital (either coax or optical) is not allowed to pass more than 48K bitstream. Something about copyright protection (?). I believe that most receiver's 'ext in' simply amps the signal through to the speakers without 'processing' or 'conditioning'. Certainly my Denon 3802 states this. So, to that end, wouldn't you HAVE to set all speakers to large to realize the full potential of DVD-Audio?

quote:

---

Dolbys alogorithim is just better using less space for the same quality of sound as DTS thats what i mean by less efficent. Also everyone seems to note how DTS sounds a little better again its because they are not doing a level matched controlled comparasion. Dolby Digital is normally about 6bb quiter than DTS at the same volumne setting. Also the DTS tracks are often doctored up to help them sound better. Whereas the Dolby Tracks are pretty much what you hear in the theater.

---

Can't speak for anybody else here but DTS doesn't sound 'a little better' to me, it sounds a $#!*load better! And it's not just that it's louder, it is far more dynamic and CLEAR. I attribute this to higher resolution. More 'bits' if info packed into an equal amount of 'time' results in less 'gaps' creating a smoother, detailed and 'fuller' experience not unlike a higher resolution picture.

------------------

Ed

[boa12]

edw, the dolby vs dts war will wage on forever. those links above to the dts rebuttals of dolby's critique (which ren also repeated) make some good sense

on the tech superiority of dts to me too. most of all my ears tell me dts sounds better, more dynamic. & that's beyond the level settings or however many kbits i see on my dvdp display.

the ext ins on your receiver bypass all the bass mgmt in your receiver (the dsp, adcs, & dacs). & there are only a few dvd-audio players out or coming out that have bass mgmt for dvd-audio (mlp). denon i believe just came out w/ 1 player that does have it.

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[Lynxfx]

When I did my A, B comparison I did adjust the levels when playing the DTS track, I believe on average of 4 dbls. It still sounded better, 98% of the time.

There are a few titles where I think the DD tracks sounds better than the DTS track. If a dvd is released as two versions, one DTS one DD I will opt for the DTS version.

[USparc]

dts/dolby digital.

All are just subjective differences. Both formats are quality wise very good. Only dolby uses less space, so probably more efficient??

Home cinema choice:

With all things being equal in the preparation of the source masters, the huge differences reported between DTS and Dolby Digital essentially disappear. The remaining comparison of the two technologies shows that Dolby Digital not only equals DTS, but in fact outperforms it. Even though DTS uses a higher data rate than Dolby Digital, greater sophistication and efficiency gives Dolby Digital superior sound quality.

Sound&Vision:

So is Dolby Digital better than DTS? No. I merely preferred Dolby Digital over DTS under these particular conditions. (Did the cold New York City weather in February play havoc with my delicate Miami temperament?) My tentative conclusion is that the differences are relatively small. In some ways, that's disappointing because DTS has been touted as sounding superior. On the other hand, the outcome of this test has increased my respect for Dolby Digital. It works really well for both multichannel movie soundtracks and music.

To read the full story: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/SoundAndVision/FrameSet/0,1670,_sl_SoundAndVision_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1653_cm_130_2352_1_cm_00,00.html

------------------

-------------------------

Receiver: Pioneer VSX-909RDS

DVD: Pioneer DV-525

Screen: Thomson 46" RetroProjection

Front: RF-3 tFTP

Rear: RF-3 tFTP

Center: RC-3 tFTP

SubW: KSW-12

[Mikekid]

Soon I will finally get to check out the DD vs DTS difference for myself. My old Sony DVP-S500D doesn't pass DTS through. This has been a fantastic player though.

A pioneer DV-47a dvd player is on the way! My "old" Sony is going in the bedroom with the "old" Yamaha and my trusty HeresyII's.

Looking forward to checking out ALL these DTS dvd's I have here!

[boa12]

funny how it was dolby that went out & dissed dts w/ their studies & their nonscientific listening tests. must be some ulterior motive by dolby imho. read the dts rebuttals such as where dolby combines channels.

dolby is more efficient only in compression & saving space. on the other hand i think they're less efficient in reproducing the dynamics of the original mix.

but they're both great for our HT & my ears overall give dts the slight edge for audio dynamics. especially this new dts 96/24 format playable on regular dvd-video players. i think the higher resolution sounds even better (higher dynamic range).

after all, isn't that why dvd-audio sounds better - higher frequencies & resolution?

------------------

My Home Systems Page

[rennocneb]

what USPARC said is dead on. Everyone can knock me because there ears say DTS is better, but you do not know if they are from the same masters how much the DTS mix is doctored up and have not performed a true blind level matched test. If you doctor a Dolby Digital track and then encode it it will sound better than DTS. I am comparing the two formats not how they are used. Dolby Digital is the better format no doubt about it from a format standpoint. But DTS does at times sound better because of better masters and doctoring for more dynamics, bass, and clarity.

[T2K]

Many DVD's have both DD and DTS tracks. DD doesn't hold a candle to DTS on my set-up. As others here have said before,I am reluctant to buy a DD only DVD.

And a question: Why would you need bass management for DVD-Audio if your speakers were set 'LARGE'?

Keith

[rennocneb]

Just because a DVD has both tracks doesnt mean they are from the same master or that the DTS version isnt in some way doctored up to sound better

[T2K]

ALL DTS soundtracks that I've ever heard were doctored up to sound better than DD, on my equipment.YMMV.

Keith