DD vs dts... Hell Freezes Over

[joelincoln]

I just got the Eagles Hell Freezes Over DVD. Several folks here had recommended it as a test for a surround system. Great DVD with great performances.

I found something unexpected in my listening tests (Yammy 2400 w/ Paradigm Studios). Keep in mind that I'm using an L-cheapo DVD player for now, but I'm sending bitstream out to the Yammy (toslink) so I don't think it would have a big impact on these results.

The disc defaults to use DD but I believe it was recorded with dts in mind. Can anyone confirm?

I found significant differences between the two formats. Imaging was much better with dts. Sound location was more distinct. I also found that the deep bass content of the DD version was too high.

Are these kinds of differences typical when comparing these two formats?

Are they entirely dependent on what the original recording was designed for?

 

[Unregistered]

The difference is often in how they were mixed. Entirely possible that the DD and DTS mixes were done by different engineers. DTS mixes are generally 4dB hotter in the LFE than DD and alot of receivers automatically attenuate the LFE channel by -4dB to account for that.

It could just be that your ears prefer the DTS version too.

 

[joelincoln]

Thanks for the reply "unregistered".

You may be right about my preferrences, but regardless of which one reproduces the sound "better", there were clear and unmistakable differences in bass content and imaging.

I guess I was curious about how typical it is that there are these differences between DD and dts on the same recording and is it due to the format or the engineering of the particular recording.

Is that 4dB bass push of dts a result of the format or bass-hungry engineers?

 

[Unregistered]

The +4dB of DTS is simply the standard they chose (relative to DD). Much controversy over which sounds better - DD or DTS.

As you may know, our ears generally perceive 'louder' to be better. Go to the dolby and dts websites. Dolby did an analysis of DTS and DTS countered. The debate went back and forth awhile. Its an interesting read but I still think which one is 'better' is in the ear of the beholder.

The particular mixing and mastering used by the engineers sometimes differs markedly too. Why does my old copy of [insert many of my old cds] sound better than the remastered versions of the same cds?

 

[jeffsg4mac]

That dvd does not have DD, it is DTS and PCM only. The DTS track is superb, it is reference quality.

 

[joelincoln]

Are you sure? The online menu clearly states DD5.1.

 

[rgriffin25]

DTS 5.1 and Stereo PCM are the only options on my disc.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Ditto for my copy; just DTS & stereo. I agree that the sound is mostly reference. The problem for me is that the music isn't. Don't get me wrong- for the most part I like the Eagles. I guess my big problem is that I have a couple buddies & a few relatives that I hang out with and it seems they're always playing the effin' Eagles. Finally I just reached the point where I got sick of 'em. So I sold my copy a few weeks ago.

 

[joelincoln]

Interesting.

My version is different. But that may explain things if the recording wasn't even designed for DD. DD was implemented on some versions ad hoc. Results weren't great.

Thanks.

 

[Unregistered]

DD vs. DTS

I just got the Eagles Hell Freezes Over DVD. Several folks here had recommended it as a test for a surround system. Great DVD with great performances.

I found something unexpected in my listening tests (Yammy 2400 w/ Paradigm Studios). Keep in mind that I'm using an L-cheapo DVD player for now, but I'm sending bitstream out to the Yammy (toslink) so I don't think it would have a big impact on these results.

The disc defaults to use DD but I believe it was recorded with dts in mind. Can anyone confirm?

I found significant differences between the two formats. Imaging was much better with dts. Sound location was more distinct. I also found that the deep bass content of the DD version was too high.

Are these kinds of differences typical when comparing these two formats?

Are they entirely dependent on what the original recording was designed for?

I myself have been struggling with these differences. I'm still trying to understand but I do know that DTS has a much greater bandwidth, thus consuming lots of space on the DVD.

DTS, I believe is 5.1 FULL channels, similar to the 2 full channels that you get with a standard audio CD. DD is definely lower quality, most suitable for movies but, at a lower bitrate. (Think of a 64kbps MP3 vs. the actual CD track). My system, Pioneer DVD, JVC RX-8000VBK receiver, JBL N24II x 4, Klipsch sc.5 center, JBL sub.. Sounds fair at best when listening to the above DVD in PCM stereo. On the other hand, in DTS mode (selected at the intro) there are very distinct and clear audio channels. In fact, if you select DTS, there is an option for Seven Bridges Road (audio only) that is mind blowing. All are singing in a different channel, it is stunning.

In conclusion, I pretty much refuse to listen to a DVD in 5.1 if it is not a DTS track. The channels are "tinny" and the sub sounds like it's blown.

Next, if you are really looking to see the difference, pick up a copy of the DVD audion version of Hotel California (purchased at BB). Acoustics in the rear, Joe Walsh's guitar in the center, etc. This is by far the best that I've heard.

Good Luck!

JW (Richmond, VA)

 

[Unregistered]

The +4dB of DTS is simply the standard they chose (relative to DD). Much controversy over which sounds better - DD or DTS.

As you may know, our ears generally perceive 'louder' to be better. Go to the dolby and dts websites. Dolby did an analysis of DTS and DTS countered. The debate went back and forth awhile. Its an interesting read but I still think which one is 'better' is in the ear of the beholder.

The particular mixing and mastering used by the engineers sometimes differs markedly too. Why does my old copy of [insert many of my old cds] sound better than the remastered versions of the same cds?

Actually gentlemen, DD is softer than Dts. Dialog normalization is utilized on the Dolby mix, and its value(whatever it is on that disc) lowers DD overall output. Its a common mistake to think that Dts is louder when that is not the case at all. Dts mixes usually have the same loudness as the printmaster tapes.

 

[Unregistered]

Actually gentlemen, DD is softer than Dts. Dialog normalization is utilized on the Dolby mix, and its value(whatever it is on that disc) lowers DD overall output. Its a common mistake to think that Dts is louder when that is not the case at all. Dts mixes usually have the same loudness as the printmaster tapes.

First you say DD is softer (less loud) than DTS and then you say it is a common mistake to think that DTS is louder. If DD is softer than DTS then by definition DTS is louder! You had it right the first time - DTS is louder and that is a FACT. See the cited articles for confirmation.

DialNorm will only lower the output if the actual dialog level is above the DialNorm value. It is metadata added to the encoded signal that specifies the 'normal' level at which the dialog is meant to be heard. If you switch to a different source where the average level is greater than the DialNorm value, then the signal will be attenuated to match the DialNorm value. If it is lower, the signal will be boosted up to the DialNorm value. It is an attempt to keep the levels of different sources similar.

It is also used when you apply dynamic range control (compression) to keep the level of the dialog at the DialNorm value. If you think in terms of compression, a DialNorm value of -27 would be the 'threshold'. All signal levels above the DialNorm value are compressed according to whatever ratio is used for each setting. Thus the level of dialog stays at the DialNorm value even though sounds above that level are compressed and the average level of the whole program is raised (but the peaks are lowered). Contrary to what people believe, compression does not make the 'soft sounds louder'. It compresses the sound above the threshold, thus bringing the level of the loud sounds down closer to the level of the soft sounds and increasing the average level.

Likewise, DD and DTS mixes are not always made from the same master, so the fact that DTS mixes have the same level as some master tells us nothing about its level relative to a DD mix of the same content.

 

[Unregistered#2]

re: dts vs dd

OK I am "another" unregistered, lol.

Two nights ago I came across my superbit edition of "Leon" and wanted to break out my headphone system back on to my stereo instead of computer. There are big differences with it, and Dolby is louder. Dolby sounds brighter/punchier, almost fatiguing on equitment that can show its "full" details. Dts was much more suited for the music in the movie, the soundtrack was excellent, though I noticed that there was a difference in the base volume of each format, dts was through and through maybe 3db below dd. The background sounds used during panoramic shots of little italy were excellent on dts, on Dolby they sounded to forced, they were forced into one channel, it wasnt "smooth" in my opinion. There is a clip of Bjork in it somewhere and it sounded fantastic, really excellent. Theres also minimalist classical-ish in the film that sounds excellent. With dts the violin sings and sounds natural, up close and intimate. Dolby butchers it, Im guessing because the lower bandwidth you give a digital signal, the more fatiguing strings etc... sound.(think "metalic")
Ive always been told that dts was higher quality by anyone who knew anything. Dolby is just more "known" to the masses. I really noticed the differences, probably because ive been using my headphones on the comp, and realized it had such a crappy soundcard. After six months of not using them on my real audio system, everything sounded fantastic! So I am still really picking up on things in music/film that I watch and listen too. Im not "adjusted" yet.

Heres the deal, DTS is for all practical purposes like having a full cd for each track. Its like having a full pcm stream for every channel. Dolby on the other hand compresses its data to save room for "goodies" on the disc, It encodes all the channels together and seperates them during processing. Its like comparing mp3 to cd for the most part. DD may actually sound "better" on some equitment, low end or equitment that for some reason is very very warm. DTS may sound "dull" compared to DD, but I found that its mostly due to the reference volume difference, pop it up 3db and your gold.
Its really just all opinion, sometimes compressed doesnt sound bad at all, for instance what Im listening to right now. If your familliar with "trance" music. Right now Im listening to an mp3 burnt onto cd, its an 80 minut track from the cd <Ministry of sound-chill out session>, it sounds fantastic. I would even go as far as to say it sounds warm. I can't really see it ever getting fatiguing. Some music sounds just fine compressed, other types don't, consequently the same goes for movies. I think it really has to do with psychoacustics just like everything else. DD may sound better, especially if you like overbearing sound effects. DTS is much better for anything musical, if your system can show it. It also depends on what your playing it on, I can really pic out anything I dont like easy with my sennheisers, headroom amp and sacd/dvda player in a very quiet room. Its not the same thing at all to try to pic out exactly what you dont like in a soundtrack while just watching a movie.

WARNING: RANT OVER

Oh, and my spelling sucks don't make fun of me

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Actually DTS is better than having a full CD stream, CD is 44/16 DTS is 48/24.

 

[Rob Babcock]

A DTS disc is still CD based (unless you're about talking a DVD). Do the math, Jeff- if 2 channels of Redbook PCM fill a disc, how can DTS get 5 channels of higher res music on a 750 GB disc? The answer- compression! A regular DTS disc that you buy in a store is much more compressed than a CD.

There are supposedly new 24/96 DTS DVDs, but I've yet to see one. Although I haven't been really looking lately (too broke! ).

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Rob, I was talking about DTS dvd's, The bit rates are as high or higher than CD correct?

 

[Unregistered]

Are we confusing bit rate with sampling frequency/bit depth?

The bit rate is the number of bits per second that must be processed and can only be directly compared to sampling frequency and bit depth when we are talking about uncompressed audio; ie PCM.

The bit rate for CD is ~1411 Kbps (1.4 Mbps) = 44,100 X 16 X 2 for 2 channels of 44.1/16 PCM.

The bit rate for DTS can vary depending on the number of channels encoded. For 5.1 DTS, the bit range can be as high as 1.5 Mbps, but is usually 768 Kbps. As was said, you cannot get 5.1 channels of DTS on a 650-700 MB CD without compression and DTS is a compressed format. If DTS 96/24 were uncompressed you would have 96,000 X 24 X 6 = 13,824,000 bits per second (13 gigabits per second!)

Comparisons of sampling frequency and bit depth are valid because higher sampling frequency and greater bit depth result in more accurately representing the original analog waveform. Bit rate comparisons on the other hand are meaningless. One may prefer DTS 96/24 over 44.1/16 CDs but the difference will be because of higher sampling frequency, bit depth, and multiple channels - NOT because of bit rate.

 

[Unregistered]

typo in above: should be 13 Mbps for DTS 5.1.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I am certainly not confused, My Diana Krall DTS CD sounds better then the exact same Redbook CD compressed or not. The 48/24 makes a difference. DTS 96/24 is even better yet.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Rob, I was talking about DTS dvd's, The bit rates are as high or higher than CD correct?

Sorry! I wasn't paying enough attention. Hmmm...I'm not absolutely sure, but I think that DTS DVDs still have much lower bitrate than a CD. Where's WmAx when you need him!