a sound test DTS vs DOlby Digital

[phildog33]

im offering an ATTEMPT to find the differences between DD and DTS here

i record using some nice equipment but my original output from the reciever was so so. i wanted to hear MAJOR differences and i am asking you guys if you hear those MAJOR differences. when i switch from dts to digital on MOULIN ROUGE i hear a HUGE difference between DTS and Dolby and DTS always wins.

then i read somewhere that maybe its just because DTS is louder and we percieve that as better. so i recorded some samples back to back after adjusting the volume difference... DTS was 5 dB louder than DD!

http://phil.phreedom.net/dts_vs_dolby_tests.htm

please respond, but be friendly. i know this is a bad set up to run for such a test or maybe the test isnt even possible. i was just trying to find MAJOR differences
-phil
p.s. what do ppl prefer DD or DTS? because when i make backup movies and have the option of DD or DTS i always choose DD. i then tried to keep DTS and DD and the video quality went to hell. i might redo all my discs so i have one copy with DD and one copy with just DTS

[bitz4brainz]

It's pretty well known that louder does "sound better", so it's always necessary to construct an A-B test such that the volume is normalized.

I don't bother with DTS when I watch DVDs. DD is plenty good for my ears. Truthfully, I've never even bothered to do a serious listening test. And since a DTS track uses a fairly substantial amount of bandwidth - more than DD - I wonder why anyone would bother with it. I think there is a law of diminishing returns on the bitrate vs quality. There is a saying that people who go for super high bitrates are probably listening with their eyes, not their ears. ;)

JMHO...

[specise_8472]

I have found some DTS titles to be 'louder' than the DD track.

The other day I was testing out my new amp with various scenes from movies that we use to test out new components we get/upgrade to.

On the disk Close Encounters of 3 kind, track 22 were the mothership comes over the mountain. I swap between the 3 different audios available, DD, DTS, Stereo. There is a marked increase in loudness on the DTS track, but a very marked improvement in tonal quality. Also I have noticed that in a lot of the NEWER Dts disks, that there is a better definition of sound in DTS. Also DTS seems to give a better channel seperation.

Equipment Marantz 7300 OSE (The new audiophile model)
PSB front x 3
Rodgers x 2 back
Yamaha x 1 back center
Onkyo Sub (Until I can afford a REL :)

Almost forgot DVD is Philips Q35, soon to be Marantz 8300.

[OvERaCiD23]

If DTS is available for the movie, I'll usually watch it the first time around with DTS (usually from the DVD). However, I use DD on all my backups, as I can't justify going 3 CDs for every movie with a DTS track (in order to keep high quality video).

[SomeJoe]

It's very difficult to objectively compare the two. Even on Hollywood DVDs where both mixes are provided, frequently there are differences in the mastering process between the two original sources, and a direct comparison can't be made.

Further, each algorithm has some of it's own features that inherently make them sound different. The psychoacoustic models for the two encoding schemes are very different, so there will be a difference in sound character regardless. DD has the dialog normalization feature (which will make most DD mixes quieter than a DTS mix), the dynamic range compression schemes are different, the designed frequency response curves are different, the frequency response of the LFE channel is different ... there are other minor differences as well.

I think there are many other factors which are far more important than the acoustic encoding algorithm selected. The choice of playback equipment, the room and setting of the listening environment, external factors like ambient noise, and the quality of the original mix are just some of these items. I think these things have far more of an impact on the resulting sound than the choice between 1.5Mb DTS or 448kb DD.

Personally, since I cannot reliably tell the difference (other than volume) between a well-mastered 1.5Mb DTS track and a well-mastered 448kb DD track, I tend to choose DD for my authored discs just because of the lower bitrate and the availability of certified but inexpensive encoders (like Sonic Foundry ACID Pro).

[Prosper]

Most DTS tracks I've come across are 768k.


On dolby's website there's a 'comparison' PDF somewhere I read a long time ago. Guess which format comes out on top?

(I posted a link in the old forums ages ago)

[phildog33]

wait, which one won? was it DD? it should be DTS but DD wrote the comparison.. so its biased
-phil

[S_O]

If you really want to compare both, pick up some good samples, maybe from CD (uncompressed source!). Then encode both yourself to DTS and Dolby Digital. For DTS you can use Surcode DTS DVD Pro (very expensive) and for Dolby Digital you can use Sonic Foundry Soft Encode (not sold anymore) or other professional Dolby-based encoder (not one from home-DVD-creation programs, their quality is worse). Do not use ac3enc from besweet, it´s quality is not good. Dolby encoder is much better.
Then decode both again to PCM and make a blind listening test.

[Sycho]

you must remember that Dolby Digtal and dts soundtracks usally come from different masters

[Slogra]

Originally posted by sycho
you must remember that Dolby Digtal and dts soundtracks usally come from different masters

DTS tracks are often from better masters so they often sound better than DD, which is reason enough for me to buy DTS DVDs :D