AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What is the difference?:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
in the most basic sense, DTS is uncompressed audio, regular Dolby Digital is compressed. same idea as having a 1411Kbps wav file(DTS) which is the raw audio off of aCD, compared to an MP3 track(Dolby Digital) which is compressed. in most cases you won't even notice a difference. but if you are really picky, or have really nice audio equipment, you can notice a jump in the accuracy with DTS. that's how i've always understood it, someone correct me if i'm wrong or expand on what i said if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,557 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jtusa4
in the most basic sense, DTS is uncompressed audio, regular Dolby Digital is compressed. same idea as having a 1411Kbps wav file(DTS) which is the raw audio off of aCD, compared to an MP3 track(Dolby Digital) which is compressed. in most cases you won't even notice a difference. but if you are really picky, or have really nice audio equipment, you can notice a jump in the accuracy with DTS. that's how i've always understood it, someone correct me if i'm wrong or expand on what i said if needed.
Pretty much right on - just a few semantics to clarify.... DTS is actually a compressed format, just very lightly and much less so than DDig. Also, they don't matrix channels together then decode on the processor side like DDig does. Each channel is separate from start to finish, which explains the slight improvement in clarity and detail. On average systems, it's unnoticable, but on really good systems, there is a clear superiority of DTS over DDig. Downside is that all that extra info takes considerably more disk space, so it's not as popular for movie packaging (can't load up all those special features ....:rolleyes: )....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,896 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by M NEWMAN
Also, they don't matrix channels together then decode on the processor side like DDig does.
Please clarify what you mean here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
on dolby digital in order to save space. like newman said, they "splice" the seperate audio channels into one, and then when the receiver or decoder gets the signal, it decodes, or seperates that signal putting each track to their respective channels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The real difference is design philosophy. Dolby is aimed at the mass market whereas DTS is aimed at the specialty audio market. This is why bass redirection is part of the original design spec of DD while more of an after thought with DTS. It is also why the first releases for DTS were music rather than film. Dolby believes that dynamics is what is most important in film presentation, after all that is what delineates the difference between hi-fi and home theater. In hi-fi, you want to reproduce the original performance as accurately as possible, in home theater you want to create something larger than life. When we talk about compression, we are not talking about signal compression (such as Dolby a/b/c or dbx) but data compression (like jpeg or tiff). Dolby uses what is called a lossy compression system (similar to jpeg). To maximize dynamics while minimizing storage requirements, Dolby sacrifices low level detail (I was told by Dolby about 70%, but have no idea on the accuracy of that statement), which they feel (probably rightly so, look at the popularity of MP3) that the average person doesn't care about.


DTS is trying to do hi-fi. They want to be able to accurately reproduce music, while also providing the larger than life feel of the cinema. DTS want's that low level detail, they want people to be able to tell what brand of cello their hearing. To achieve this, while maintaining 24 bit dynamics, DTS uses a lossless compression system (similar to tiff), what they give up is real estate (storage space). With laser disc, this meant no backwards compatibility (no pcm track), with DVD it means not as many extras, or double sided or multiple discs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
DTS is a much more inefficient codec than Dolby Digital. If the encoders are fed the same info, DD and DTS should be impossible to tell apart with your ears alone, unless one or the other doesn't do its job. DTS is compressed, DTS does sum channels together for better compression, and for the record, DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete is great to listen to. :D


About the data rates, Dolby uses 32 frequency bands and has twice the sample length of DTS, which accounts for DD being MUCH more efficient (more frequency bands to compress, and with a longer sample window, more opportunity to compress). Simply saying that the data rates determine sonic quality is a falsehood. Otherwise, one could say GIF files are always better than JPG files as GIF files are larger. When a more efficient codec is used, the data argument becomes moot.


I state that given identical master recordings and no futzing around with the encoder that DTS and DD will sound the same, and only be differentiated via test equipment upon playback. Sadly, most of the time, DTS and DD are not encoded the same, so a true judgement of their sonic quality cannot be honestly evaluated (DTS lacks dialog normalization, and often times is hotter in the surrounds; our brains equate subtle volume differences to be better). The only way to figure out if one is really better than the other is to feed both a DTS and a DD encoder the same info from a master, then decode the streams and do a comparison with the output of the master. That way, the one closest to the master would be "better". I'm not aware of anyone doing this, so anyone saying one is better than the other is playing the "ford vs. chevy" game.


Both sound great, but DTS is not magic, nor is Dolby. Both are lossy codecs that sound great when properly engineered. Having said all this, I'll say that I prefer DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete over DD-EX, or DTS-ES matrix. However, there are DVDs where the DD mix is better than the DTS mix. One must audition both tracks and then determine which to listen to...


Sorny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,947 Posts
No, DD is not 'encoded'. Both formats are discrete, and both use compression. The primary difference is the anount; DTS uses about 1/5th as much.


On laserdisc, the AC-3 (DD) track is in place of the left analog track; the DTS track is in place of the digital stereo (PCM) tracks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,409 Posts
>>Downside is that all that extra info takes considerably more disk space, so it's not as popular for movie packaging (can't load up all those special features ....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Wow! this thread has been truly remarkable!


I would hope that anyone who really wants information regarding this debate will search WELL beyond this thread! I mean, from saying that DTS does not compress the material to saying that DTS is lossless etc..... Then moving to saying that DTS only uses 20% of the compression of DD, thus it must be better.... I have followed a number of these threads, and should probably just leave well enough alone, but the inaccuracies in this thread are astounding. Remember that the bitrate of DD is lower than DTS, but the CODECS are entirely different!!! Therefore, the bitrate is not the only thing to take into account. The DD codec is thought to be more efficient. Also, it is very difficult if not impossible to make a level matched comparison as different masters are almost always used to make these DVDs. I think SORNY summed this up well.


This isn't coming from someone with an axe to grind. I have both DD and DTS encoding, and a number of both DVDs. I enjoy both. I just feel that the differences in the masters utilized during encoding is MUCH greater than the differences that result from which compression coded is used.


I do believe that full bit-rate DTS, as originally designed, trumps DD. I believe the difference is audible to most, and I don't think this is being argued here. Given the real estate required, though, DTS needed to halve its bit rate to make much of a presence on DVD.


Again, to demonstrate that I am impartial here, I would much rather have full bit rate DTS combined with the highest possible video bit-rate (eliminating extras) than anything we are being given right now.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Yeah, Joe, just like that!


I took the time to read through some of your discussions with much interest. It would surprise me if there weren't a lot of us out there who are really interested in the highest possible video and audio quality, even on current SD DVDs. I think this means, at this point, full bit rate DTS with highest possible video bit rate. Extras, as you have mentioned, could be placed on a second DVD (or omitted as much as I care). I truly believe the movie presentation is the most important thing, here.


On the other hand, we may have some disagreement here. While I think we both agree that full bit rate DTS is the best possible option right now for SD DVD, half bit rate DTS just does not cut it for me. In other words, I really think people are wasting their breath arguing for this half bit rate stuff rather than DD. As I mentioned, I just don't think the difference in sound quality between these codecs is significant to the point where it overwhelms the fact that different masters are almost always utilized.


Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
>>>I truly believe the movie presentation is the most important thing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
From a user's point of view, no difference, as long as the decoder can handle both. For a theoretical point of view: It is almost impossible to make any informed judgment, since on the available discus, it is almost guaranteed that the encoded mixes or the encoding parameters have been different. Besides, I can set up any encoder so that it will sound like crap. :)


However, I have had the rare opportunity to compare DD to the uncompressed multichannel mix in a studio environment. This is something not generally available to consumers, unfortunately. Based on my experience, when done right, DD encoding/decoding process is fully or very near indistinguishable form the original - in those rare passages that there might have been the slightest difference, I still needed multiple takes and the ability to do real-time, level calibrated a/b comparison. Whatever difference there was, the point was purely of academic interest with no real-life importance.


I have not had the chance to do similar experiment with DTS, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that the result would be the same. In other words, from my experience, the noted differences have to with different materials (director:" since I have this second chance..."), encoder/decoder settings (I did emphasize the "done right" part!) or imagination.


Bottom line: both methods are very good, almost perfect. Enjoy the movie!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Basically, you're saying that Dolby Digital is nearly transparent. The funny thing is, you're claiming better performance than Dolby claims for their own codec. WOW!


In one of the Democrat's recent debates, nearly all candidates tried to align themselves with Clinton. Some way or another, they tried to prove their association with the former President. After this round of Clinton humping, the best line of the night came from none other than Al Sharpton. It went something like this: "...next thing you know, we'll be saying that Bill Clinton walked on water."


I'm sure you understand the relevance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
:) I know Dolby does not claim DD to be transparent, and perhaps, with difficult material, it isn't. But for practical purposes, it is very, very near. That was my experience. I'm sure we didn't hit the worst-case material, but we had a wide variety. I guess I really claim that both methods are so good that the difference has little or no significance, the material and setup have much more variance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
I have no problem with arguing for better audio performance. (In fact, I'm sure Joe will agree with me, we should all be arguing for the maximum possible audio and video performance on a single disc, with extras separated) My only problem with the argument currently taking place is that we are arguing for MINIMAL, if any improvement at all. There may, in fact be no improvement at all. Different does not necessarily mean better, as we should be striving for Accuracy.


If we are going to take the time to verbalize our distaste for current formats, I think we should at least argue for full bit rate DTS, if not a lossless format. Perhaps full bit rate DTS should be our current goal given space limitations as they currently exist.


In the end, though, I'm not sure how high performance is even possible given the artificiality of movie soundtracks themselves.


Maybe we should just all go home and listen to some SACDs / DVDAudio discs...............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
>>>In the end, though, I'm not sure how high performance is even possible given the artificiality of movie soundtracks themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Murphy Jr
That's one reason that I suggested full bitrate DTS (1.5 Mb/s) as a minimum for the next format in the HD-DVD petition. If this is the minimum we get, we are closer to the studio master and surpass what we are currently getting on DVD (Dolby Digital 448 and DTS 754). If you know what a movie soundtrack goes through, it's hard to argue for more. But don't settle for the less that we have now, either.
Gotta agree with you Joe.


Full-bit-rate DTS is a significant improvement - at least in my theater - over half-rate DTS or any DD. All one needs to determine this is a moderately capable system and two DVDs: the DD and DTS versions of Apollo 13, Twister or Dragonheart.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top