DD vs dts... Hell Freezes Over

[mtrycrafts]

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!

You are correct, DTS is a lossy perceptual coding and less than the CD.
But, sheer numbers are not the whole story but the algorythm used in the codec.

WmAx? You need to put a padlock on him

 

[WmAx]

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.

Their are many variables at play other then the sampling rate/dynamic range specifications of the medium when doing such a comparison. Therefor one can not conclude that these two are responsible when all of the others are not controlled.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

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.

True, that the higher sample rate will result in a more accurate representation of a waveform, IF the waveform contains frequencies higher then the CD format. Then their is the standing question of what benefit a higher sampling rate provides in terms of audibility. No one has demonstrated a need for greater bandwidth for audible reasons in a valid test. I like to reflect on the moment, and observe the massive percetual research projects that were produced to determine the specs for CD. Then look at the ZERO valid projects with positive results done in perceptual research to demonstrate audible benefit of higher resolution. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Come to think of it again, perhaps Sony knows it would be redundant to perform once again, tests that have already shown the maximum detectable high frequency spectra of humans. But, it's fun to see the gimick literature like on their site showing a square wave looking more 'square' with the SACD bandwidth compared to RBCD. Leave it to the imagination to correlate(improperly) with audibility. Good marketing trick! Hey, mtrycrafts, didn't you have a link of a 'fixed' Sony produced SACD vs. CD test where they were caught cheating? MOre interesting food for thought.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

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!

Sorry, I don't pay attention to surround sound compression formats. Compression is not specifically my area of interest except in the limited scope of what I use to encode on my portable audio player.

-Chris

 

[Rob Babcock]

For all the talk about DTS 24/96, I've yet to see one (or hear one). If I ever find one (and it's musically interesting) I'll check it out.

 

[pieroxy]

Quoting an old post in this thread:
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.

This is utterly untrue. It made me think of a past experience:

I went to visit an old man I was giving CS lessons to. He opened the door and told me: "CD is crap". I was quite surprised.

It turned out the guy had bought a CD version of an old recording of a classical concert somewhere, he had on tape (pof. grade tape and player). He listened to it and told me: This is not as good as the version I own. We listened to both, and there was audible differences.

But his conclusion that CD was lower quality than tape was flawed. I proposed a test to him, and he complied. We dug up a RCA-Jack cable and started recording his tape to his computer. A few minutes were recorded, so we burned a CDA with the recorded waveform.

He couldn't tell the difference with his original.

Moral: Because it sounds worse does not mean the medium it's on is worse. It very very often means that you are listening to different things.

 

[MACCA350]

They use different encoding algorithms, you cant compare just on bitrates. DTS needs higher bitrate than DD. If you drop DTS down to DD bitrates, I've read, DD will sound better.

Oh and by the way, DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 are both Descrete formats (6 Seperate channels). But DD EX is 6 descrete + matrixed rear ctr, DTS ES is either 7 descrete OR 6 descrete + matrixed rear ctr. Either way you can matrix both 5.1 formats for 6.1 or 7.1 playback if your receiver is capable.

cheers