If most movies are in dolby digital/dts, doesn't your experience get ruined?

[HTHOLIC]

Hey, audioholics

An important question that I wanted to bring up and point out is that most movies are in dolby digital and dts and it uses a lot of compression and lossy formats

While this is well known, don't high end speakers ruin your experience because you hear all the flaws and compression artifacts, Im talking about the real detailed speakers such as the high end RBH's , although you may notice it on axion or svsound bookshelfs if you have a critical hearing

With all the talk about compressed MP3's at 128kbps, why are a lot of audiophiles not complaining about these lossy formats. Tom had mentioned in his podcast about dolby being lossy , but dts is just as lossy although to a slightly lesser extent.

Dolby plays at 192 to 448 kbps while dts plays around 700 kbps due to space limitations from its 1.5mbps. Unlike dolby , however dts doesn't use advanced algorithms to reduce its size without sound quality loss.

For example, dolby takes data from the low end and the high end to compress it as our ears are less sensitive to those frequencies.

Everybody talks about how home theater rocks, but what do you find when listening to dts and dolby digital movies?

Is it the same as compressed mp3's that are 192kbps or is it more like a 320kbps mp3 encoded.

With all talk about compression, it is clear that with the exception of new rare lossy dolby and dts formats making their war in last year, most movies have lossy sound, which is compressed.

So does it bother you a lot? Express your opinion

 

[cfrizz]

No this doesn't bother me because 1. I love having a movie play in DTS. 2. I am focusing on the movie or music. I'm not listening to see if I can hear compression or flaws.

There is such a thing as being TOO analytical & that seems to apply to a lot of self proclaimed audiophiles!

Stop tweaking, over analyzing, & dissecting & just enjoy the entertainment!

 

[Johnd]

Everybody talks about how home theater rocks, but what do you find when listening to dts and dolby digital movies?

Is it the same as compressed mp3's that are 192kbps or is it more like a 320kbps mp3 encoded.

No, not at all for me.

I could never compare the sq from my mp3 to my Denons and 'digms...never.

 

[avaserfi]

HTHOLIC you are completely missing the point. Yes, on higher end speakers you can hear compression artifacts and other errors in poorly mastered/compressed movies and music but if you just sit down to enjoy a good movie or listen to some music you don't HAVE to analyze it. Sitting down to enjoy yourself means you should be able to do that not constantly focus on the bad areas of the recording and if you are maybe you shouldn't worry so much.

There is a reason you should bring a poorly recorded disc that you enjoy with you when auditioning speakers to make sure the speakers don't make it sound so bad you can't enjoy the music you like.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

It's difficult to hear compression artifacts when I am busy trying not to wet my pants secondary to my sub scaring the heck out of me during low scenes.

Just enjoy the movie and do critical lisitening with your music.

 

[Dolby CP-200]

LOL I’ve heard ADR problems in TV shows and films doesn’t it ruin it for me, let me think no, I expect film sound is fabricated its all made up.

I’ve heard the worse kind, kinder like “Rice Krispies” you know that snap crackle and pop distortion where the most perfect brand new laserdisc or DVD makes you think your loudspeakers are distorting with overload! Here a few snaps shots of a few films to show where it occurs at the worst was Armageddon thou I can’t think of no other reason why it’s the worst film that really takes the Mickey out of NASA!

Apollo 13 it happens on the dts THX laserdisc and all versions of DVD and without a shadow of a doubt I’m willing to bet the so called NOT perfect HD-DVD as well, now then!

I mentioned Armageddon above thou I don’t have the Dolby digital laserdisc version to A&B test it, I’m willing to bet its on the laserdisc and its on the two DVD versions I have, the snap shots are taken from the first DVD R2 edition, I couldn’t be asked to do the so called special edition the film is so bad but enjoyable for some strange reasons?

Now I don’t care how this orientated FACT is it exists, it could have orientated on the dubbing stage who cares, it could have orientated during the transfer who cares FACT is its on the master duplication who cares the FACT is each and every one of you have heard it but you never noticed, well I’m staggered I have to lay down.

The amount of times I noted “Armageddon” was at (76.30) (76.36)
(76.43) (76.48) (76.51) (76.52)

Apollo 13 had less! Now I’m not going to go though the whole running time of “Armageddon” I’m involved with STAR TREK II surround only experiment at this time, besides “Armageddon” makes me what to swing from the chandelier!

 

[obscbyclouds]

To be honest, most of the time, I don't notice it on well mixed and mastered DD and DTS tracks. I know it is a lossy compression, but a well recorded DVD still sounds excellent.

However (There always has to be a however with me ), If i switch from listening to an uncompressed DVD-A or SACD to a lossy DD or DTS track even on a good DVD like Master and Commander, I definately notice the loss in dynamics. It almost sounds like I've gone from the front row of a concert into the nosebleed seats.

With all that being said, I try to stay away from listening to uncompressed music then jumping into a DVD. Like I said befrore, I don't really notice the loss and all is well. I guess we'll all have to wait until we all have BR or HD-DVD and all movies contain DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD tracks to be truly happy, like an audioholic can ever be truly happy!

 

[HTHOLIC]

Interesting opinions, so is dolby to you like 192 or 320kbps MP3

Please note, ,that I really don't have an opinion yet
on this issue.

However, like the audioholic above me, I notice when switching from a dts soundtrack such as Diana Krall to a dvd-audio disc its a big difference. Everything is clear and smooth and the instruments. I guess it may have to do with the music.

The reason being is that, people often complain about compressed 128kbps music, which is understandable but what about 192kbps music

or if its encoded in 320kbps?

I guess people are more focused on the movie and hte music, but dolby DID use algorithims to minimize the impact, ie compressing the low end and high end further to reduce space

Maybe its because our EARS ARE LESS SENSITIVE TO LOW END AND HIGH END SOUNDS WHICH MOVIES ARE KNOWN FOR?

Its extremely interesting,

One thing is for sure, if it were no big deal then we wouldn't need to have the new dolby hd and dts hd formats, unless of course - its designed to replace dvd audio and sacd which didn't hit the mainstream

 

[j_garcia]

Don't over think it. It isn't exactly the same methodology used for MP3 here, so as long as it sounds good, it doens't really matter if these two formats are/were "lossy". The mixing/mastering and original recording itself matter more, and if they are of good quality then you have little to worry about. Same goes with MP3 to some extent - MP3 from a good master can still sound pretty darn good even as low as 192K.

 

[Dolby CP-200]

I seem to remember reading a home cinema magazine many years ago where several people where invited to watch a few Dolby digital Laserdiscs of Batman Forever where the response was wow over the difference between PCM track and the Dolby digital track? I’d have to fish around the flat for the magazine as this was about 12 or 14 years ago.

 

[mtrycrafts]

For example, dolby takes data from the low end and the high end to compress it as our ears are less sensitive to those frequencies.

No. It is more complicated algorithm than that. Masking occurs at all bands. Research shows when and how much. The codes eliminates these masked signals and more in case of the lower bit rate MP3.

Don't confuse this with CD compression of the volume and dynamic range, they are not the same.

DVDs have a pretty good DD bit rate, in the 320 or more like 400 hundreds. It is capable of getting into the 600 range and is difficult to tell apart, that is why these codes work so well.

While you may gain a bit from lossless ones, it is not that much and perception can fool you. The hi def DVDs have the room, DVDs just don't unless you give up on video quality even more.

 

[tbewick]

Dolby plays at 192 to 448 kbps while dts plays around 700 kbps due to space limitations from its 1.5mbps. Unlike dolby , however dts doesn't use advanced algorithms to reduce its size without sound quality loss.

I think the question of DTS versus Dolby is a fairly complex one. I know that in the past, Dolby have criticised the quality of DTS, with DTS reacting in an understandably defensive way:

http://www.dts.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dtsposition.pdf
http://www.dts.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dolbyrvu.pdf

You might be interested in this paper, which tested several codecs including DTS and Dolby Digital (AC-3):

http://www.swin.edu.au/sbs/radio/papers/AES119.pdf
Audio Engineering Society 119th Convention, New York, October 2005, 'Subjective Consumer Evaluation of Multi-channel Audio Codecs', James L. Barbour.

This paper looked at MPEG-2, MPEG-3, MPEG AAC, AC-3, and Lucent PAC:

http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/00222.pdf
'Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art 2-Channel Audio Codecs', Gilbert A. Soulodre, Theodore Grusec, Michel Lavoie, and Louis Thibault.

I guess people are more focused on the movie and hte music, but dolby DID use algorithims to minimize the impact, ie compressing the low end and high end further to reduce space

Maybe its because our EARS ARE LESS SENSITIVE TO LOW END AND HIGH END SOUNDS WHICH MOVIES ARE KNOWN FOR?

This paper looks at the principles behind perceptual coder design, with reference to MPEG and AC-3:

http://www.eas.asu.edu/~spanias/papers/paper-audio-tedspanias-00.pdf
'Perceptual Coding of Digital Audio', by Ted Painter and Andreas Spanias. Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 88, No. 4, April 2000.

 

[skizzerflake]

There's a big difference between music and movies. Most of what's in movies is speech, sound FX, etc. Without a real reference, you don't know what it's supposed to sound like and it moves so fast that you don't get a chance to focus in analytic sound quality. Music in 128K MP3 pretty much sucks, but for car chases, exploding galaxies, gun fights...who would ever know. Even the music in movies is generally mixed with whatever's on the screen so you can't listen very closely.

 

[Hi Ho]

I never really thought much about the fact that Dolby Digital and DTS are compressed lossy formats. I always thought they sounded pretty damn good!

Yesterday my Toshiba HD-A2 came and I hooked it up to try it out. I had stopped at Best Buy on the way home from work and picked up We Were Soldiers on HD-DVD so I'd have a movie to try. I hadn't given any thought to the fact that HD-DVD discs have at least a DD-Plus track on them because I assumed that my Yamaha receiver wouldn't be able to play them.

After testing the movie out (amazing picture) I was thinking, "wow, that sounds REALLY good!". It sounded better than I'm used to. Everything seemed to be more detailed and the LFE was exceptionally tight. I also noticed that my receiver said "MPCM" on the front display. After some research I finally discovered that my receiver can play back the higher quality formats found on HD-DVD's because the player does the decoding and sends it via Multi-Channel-PCM through HDMI. Now I can't wait to try out a Dolby TrueHD track!

DD-Plus is still a compressed format but the bit-rate is roughly 6 times that of plain DD. The difference is deffinetly audible on my system and I am excited about the new formats.

 

[Johnd]

I never really thought much about the fact that Dolby Digital and DTS are compressed lossy formats. I always thought they sounded pretty damn good!

Precisely.

Thus the caveat "do not overanalyze".

Sacd is lossless (and I love it btw), but what is there to compare it to?

Dts is lossy, but what is there to compare it to? If it is well-produced and mastered , who cares? Same with Dolby.

Information never had (or never recorded) is information never lost.

 

[avaserfi]

Information never had (or never recorded) is information never lost.

That statement bothers me. If a faulty mic doesn't record certain frequencies created by a guitar are they really never lost? What about the fact that now we have losseless audio formats when it comes to movie playback?

This thought process is also indicative of the thought process that seems to occur during the loudness war. We loose that dynamic range, but since we (consumers) never had it we haven't lost it? Just because we were never given it does not mean it wasn't created and does not mean it shouldn't be given to us.

Even if the information was never recorded it can still be lost. Improper mastering or use of equipment is a completely different beast than proper compression especially because the compression being discussed here was the only option at the time. Now that there are better options, HD, we are slowly making use of them as well.

 

[Johnd]

That statement bothers me. If a faulty mic doesn't record certain frequencies created by a guitar are they really never lost? What about the fact that now we have losseless audio formats when it comes to movie playback?

This thought process is also indicative of the thought process that seems to occur during the loudness war. We loose that dynamic range, but since we (consumers) never had it we haven't lost it? Just because we were never given it does not mean it wasn't created and does not mean it shouldn't be given to us.

Even if the information was never recorded it can still be lost. Improper mastering or use of equipment is a completely different beast than proper compression especially because the compression being discussed here was the only option at the time. Now that there are better options, HD, we are slowly making use of them as well.

No not at all avaserfi. You are hereby relinquished to the "overly analytical" crowd. Do not take my statement out of context...you don't get up nearly that early.

The statement just prior to the one you quoted included "produced and mastered." If it was never produced, what's your beef?

 

[avaserfi]

The way you formated you text I read the two statements separately with the latter being a more sweeping statement than was ment apparently.. Hence my reply. If you ment it another way then thats a different story.

Also, hows getting up at 3:30 for you? I didn't have a chance for the morning coffee either...

 

[Johnd]

The way you formated you text I read the two statements separately with the latter being a more sweeping statement than was ment apparently.. Hence my reply. If you ment it another way then thats a different story.

Also, hows getting up at 3:30 for you? I didn't have a chance for the morning coffee either...

Ahhh...but it's all in the same message.

Cool: we have an understanding. I did not mean to send separate and distinct obfuscations within the same post...I will truly try to work on that. I really dislike misunderstandings.

Anyhow, we're on the same page. I would have to agree with you in your initial misunderstanding of the broad sweeping statement "Information never had (or never recorded) is information never lost." By itself, it is lacking. Enough of that.

3:30? I like that time of the morning...it's quiet. Peace and a good night.

 

[HTHOLIC]

Getting back to Tom Andry's post , and how people percieve sound

Gene in his RBH T-30 LSE review had mentioned that he could hear all the compression artifacts in the dolby digital recording.

However, as noted in this forum , whether a recording is well mastered and encoded could make a differnece , for example love scenes by Diana Krall is in DTS which is probably not that much better than if it was in dolby digital

See Clint debor's mentioned in the faq section of audioholics about dolby v. DTS. Again, since dolby has a lot of different compression algorithms so as to not affect sound quality , it makes up for less space.

However, dolby digital is used because of space considerations , on your cable HD

or satellite compressed HD images are still used due to bandwidth limitations, the same is with dolby digital , bitrate goes lower to save space so that video quality doesn't suffer


With that in mind, dolby digital even in OTA (Over the air uncompressed HD) , is here to stay for HDTV shows.

I doubt dolby trueHD will be broadcast on television or even dolby digital plus.

The dolby format has been around for 15 years come to think about.

Let me add this tbewick's link to the article

"Subjective Consumer Evaluation of Multichannel
Audio Codecs"



is an excellent one

Its too much and too big and too great of an article for me to list here in a summary without reading it.

http://www.swin.edu.au/sbs/radio/papers/AES119.pdf

The testers were average joe's and jane's who have experienced surround sound in a theater who had not had hearing defects and who were not professionals and critical listeners AND had audio professionals as well

Its well worth reading even 128 mp3's and wma's are listeed.

Thank you tbewick.