Dolby Digital and DTS differences............

I take it everybody's already read the Dolby & DTS self & other analysis on eachothers' websites?
 
Originally posted by bowenjones
Isn't this your article from a few years back Adam Barratt?
Have your views changed since you first wrote it?

Now I am truly intrigued! I was completely unaware that the web page I was linking to was that of the AVForums member above!

I would be interested in your thoughts, Adam Barnett, re my original points. :) Do you think they have any relevance in why people seem so emotional about the DD v DTS argument?

Sigs :)
 
Originally posted by Sigismund
I wondered about the Sony connection with Columbia Pictures and Superbit titles. Most DVDs do not have DTS, but Sony include a DTS track on Superbit titles. Why? More choice for us, the consumers? Then why no DTS-ES or DD-EX? Or is there a DTS "connection"?

I would have thought that Sony, owning SDDS, would not try too much to help dts out. But maybe they are in league to give Dolby a good kick-in.

Thinking about it, I have a Yamaha amp. They seem to have an aversion to thx. thx has connections with Dolby. And I reckon it produces better dts than dd!

This is much more interesting than the usual debate.
 
Originally posted by figrin_dan
I would have thought that Sony, owning SDDS, would not try too much to help dts out.

Probably true ;) After all if they did want to give DD a good kicking, I guess they would release the Superbits with a full bitrate DTS track and include a DD stereo track only :D So maybe a crafty way to "get rid of" DD would be to "massage" the quality of the hardware decoders :devil:

Then again, one of my fave movies is Conspiracy Theory :D





Hang on...........that doesn't even have a DTS track on it :devil: :rolleyes: :clown: :suicide:

Sigs
 
Originally posted by figrin_dan
Thinking about it, I have a Yamaha amp. They seem to have an aversion to thx. thx has connections with Dolby. And I reckon it produces better dts than dd!

This is much more interesting than the usual debate.

The latest Yamaha amps (rxv 1400 & 2400) are THX certified, so that may have an infulence on your consipacy theory :D
 
There is much interesting reading here guys...particularly in the links.
This is the av forums of old...getting quite close to a punch up a bit earlier but I think we've averted that one...I've learnt a lot from this thread and it seems my theories were right all along.
There is definite scope for "dts sounds crap so my kit must be brilliant then" arguments though. I've thought this all along so obviously I've got the best set up on the forums...:p
 
Adam,

I am fully aware of the different bitrates of the two formats, and also that they use different algorithms. Bloatware isn't always better. I also stated that some DTS disks were encoded with a higher db LFE channel, but you chose to ignore that fact. The bitrate argument has been done so I won't repeat it. The article that appears to bear your name effectively negates your argument in this respect anyway.

However, I will repeat that I merely stated that to me, DTS appears merely louder than DD, and that other than that, I cannot comment on any quality improvement between either.

You however, seem to equate louder to quality, so I suggest you just turn everything up a little, and enjoy the improved quality therein. :)

Gary.
 
Originally posted by Army Bloke
There is much interesting reading here guys...particularly in the links.
This is the av forums of old...getting quite close to a punch up a bit earlier but I think we've averted that one...I've learnt a lot from this thread and it seems my theories were right all along.
There is definite scope for "dts sounds crap so my kit must be brilliant then" arguments though. I've thought this all along so obviously I've got the best set up on the forums...:p

Actually, my system is so good I only ever listen to movies in DD Mono :D

Sigs
 
If as stated DD quality improves more than DTS quality as you move up to better equipment, to me thats a sad reflection on Dolby if you ignore all the conspiracy theories.

In the real world most people cannot fork out 10k plus on a system so it's pointless saying DD sounds great on my Bryston SP1.7 or whatever as the vast majority of people do not fork out that much on a home cinema system. If DTS sounds better in general through a Sony DAV system or through a 500 pound integrated amp then that is the more important level of comparison.
 
Originally posted by Sigismund
Actually, my system is so good I only ever listen to movies in DD Mono :D

Sigs

:rotfl:

That should actually read mys system is so BAD ...

dts actually sounds so much better when I run it through my sons 14" portable...:nono: getting stupid now - shut up Brian and leave...:(
 
Originally posted by Adam Barratt
But surely higher bit-rates mean lower compression which in turn means higher quality, just like increasing an MP3 bit-rate or a Superbit DVD to improve quality. Simple, really.

:)

You've said it yourself adam, does increasing the bitrate for a video transfer improve it by default? Nope, not at all, in fact Superbit is an amazing scam on Columbia's part imho.
 
Originally posted by Smurfin
You've said it yourself adam, does increasing the bitrate for a video transfer improve it by default? Nope, not at all, in fact Superbit is an amazing scam on Columbia's part imho.

Columbia/Sony :smoke:

Sigs
 
Sigismund and bowenjones, no my views haven't changed. Just having a little fun with a very familiar discussion; I had hoped my statements would be dismantled quite easily as they are all fundamentally flawed and offer plenty of opportunity for simple dissection. I was a little disappointed this didn't happen.

I have been a little surprised by some of the responses here. It seems that some people take this argument very seriously. :)

Adam
 
Originally posted by Adam Barratt
Sigismund and bowenjones, no my views haven't changed. Just having a little fun with a very familiar discussion; I had hoped my statements would be dismantled quite easily as they are all fundamentally flawed and offer plenty of opportunity for simple dissection. I was a little disappointed this didn't happen.

I have been a little surprised by some of the responses here. It seems that some people take this argument very seriously. :)

Adam

EDITED as my original post was unnecesary. Debate away :)
 
Originally posted by Adam Barratt
Sigismund and bowenjones, no my views haven't changed. Just having a little fun with a very familiar discussion; I had hoped my statements would be dismantled quite easily as they are all fundamentally flawed and offer plenty of opportunity for simple disection. I was a little disappointed this didn't happen.

I have been a little surprised by some of the responses here. It seems that some people take this argument very seriously. :)

Adam

I never take arguments seriously................that's why I took what you wrote with a pinch of salt :devil: And it was simpler to keep linking to, what I didn't know was your, site :D

I've learned the hard way that it's all too easy to be taken seriously round here when playing deil's advocate :devil: I will say, though, that your argument about bitrates earlier in this thread was SO much easier to get my head round than what's written on your web site ;)

I think it's also important to remember that the old "which is best" argument needs to be "controlled" to a degree to prevent things getting completely out of control!

Anyway, I'm off for further digestion of your writings!

Cheers,

Sigs
 
Well at least this debate is civil so far;)
 
Adam, I've just read my previous post and I hope it comes across as intended! Now I've read it I think it sounds a bit "off" :rolleyes: What I meant by it was that I understood (once I realised who you were) that you were playing devil's advocate and that I really enjoy reading your articles.

And please, please let me know what you think about the hardware side of things re how much difference this may or may not make to the difference in perceptions of DD v DTS.

Cheers,

Sigs
 
Originally posted by Steve.EX
In my (humble) opinion and experience most people cannot tell the difference between what is different and what IS actually better.


Absolutely! Only if folks understand and can read between the lines, what you said in your excellent post.

:smashin:
 
Better in terms of sound is very subjective - what may seem better to one person may not to another.

What I am trying to say is that if DTS sounds better to an individual then it is better full stop as its that individuals preference. Whether someone else finds it to be simply different to DD or simply the same is irrelevant.
 
Isn't the be-all and end-all of this argument whichever sound format people enjoy listening to the most?

Not all people are 'blessed' enough to tell what is actually better from different (steve ;)) - but they still know what they like.

The argument, for us technically minded, is why :p
 
Dimmy.

I would not, in any way shape or form claim to have golden ears, sixth sense, or any "blessed" attributes etc etc etc.
What i would say, (as i have always said) is that IMHO you do not need great hearing to hear well, if that makes sense.
Of course, there is the subjective element, particularly when we are talking about what in most cases (re: DD/DTS) are really quite small "differences". This IS exactly my point.
When listening to 2 channel stereo (CD) and simple acoustic/close mic'd female vocal affairs etc it is easy to concentrate upon an individual "strand" the flamenco guitarist for example, the strike of the string, the timbre of the guitar, the physical postion of the guitarist, the vocal inflection etc etc etc, i think that it IS possible to differentiate with less subjectiveness which s a better amplifier for instance, obviously based on ones personal criterea (or preference if you like) for timing or dynamics, or depth of soundstage, these types of "values" i feel ARE distinguishable as better or worse.
When we arrive at the good old DD/DTS chestnut, my quote regarding most peole can't differentiate between different or better will include myself if you like.
The "differences" in my listening sometimes are so small that i am unable to reach the conclusion that A is BETTER than B based on my understandings/beliefs of what "clearly better" is, so my "musings" are then based on what is actually different..
Hence my annoyance when i read so offten that "DTS rocks" or "DTS blows xxx out of the water" etc, based on what exactly?
when i start reading things like "like opening a window" or "subjective improved coherence" i tend to shut down, these are euphormisms that i have read over and over again in the HiFi rags over the years.
IMHO if you want a real improvement in coherence (between speakers) press the THX button.

Analy retentive as ever - nothing if not reliable.
 
I hope they include MLP as one of the sound formats for the new HD DVD players which should arrive 2005, possibily even sooner on computers, thats a meridian designed format and it WILL give noticeable benefits to everyone wanting better sound quality, i believe its fighting to be recognised as one of the formats which can be chosen although Dolby will likely be the main format with 640kb/s as their top bitrate for HD DVD.
 
Originally posted by Steve.EX
Hence my annoyance when i read so offten that "DTS rocks" or "DTS blows xxx out of the water" etc, based on what exactly?
when i start reading things like "like opening a window" or "subjective improved coherence" i tend to shut down, these are euphumisms that i have read over and over again in the HiFi rags over the years.

Steve, read a couple of my reviews (if you haven't already done so). How else would you describe the differences, when trying to convey it in words?
 
Matt.

Most sincerely, my post's do not infer an ineptitude of anyone here and i apologise unreservedly should anyone feel that it/they are.
I am sure i "know" no more than the next chap.
In my job i am not allowed the luxury of the "grey area" (or personal belief) between something that is different and something that is better.
It is or it isn't.


"I cannae break free cap'n"


best regards

Steven
 
This is a point I made a while back. We don't however use those types of over the top terms, but in describing differences in formats it is impossible to word what you are trying to say in an understandable context. Someone once posted to what they regarded as a review two dvds and comparing the sound formats. The review featured graphs and scientific equasions ***!

I said to Matt when he began reviewing for Total what did he think about dts and what was his position on the subject. He told me he firmly sat on the fence on the issue and had no preference one way or the other and he bertainly wasn't a fanboy. I warned him however that by reviewing discs he would change his stance and he just laughed it off. But i believe i was right with what i said, when you are doing things like reviews you have to listen harder than you probably normally would, hence you certainly begin to notice differences between the tracks.

Which is better is always a personal preference or opinion and as such you will never read a review where the reviewer is totally unbiased, it is impossible, try it. Sit down and subjectively review a dvd with both soundtracks and then try to write down your findings and be totally unbiased toward what you prefered.

{edit: written as Steve was replying above}
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom