DTS or Dolby Digital ?

C

cjem

Audioholic Intern
Hi All,

I have a question about DTS and Dolby Digital,

On many DVD’s, Audio DVD's there are many selections for audio playback and I have a few questions to ask.

1. Which is better?
2. Should I use one over the other for audio DVD's and movie DVD's
3. Is Dolby Digital the standard format for movies?

I tried both configurations and I like the DTS a little more.

Any comments?

Thanks
 
jaxvon

jaxvon

Audioholic Ninja
I've found that DTS sounds much better than Dolby Digital. That's the general consensus around the forum too. In fact, I go out of my way to pick up movies with DTS.
 
majorloser

majorloser

Moderator
As Jax just stated, DTS soundtracks are by far the preferred choice with most of us. They are a little tougher to find and in most cases only on special editions.

Some favorites (and good demo material):

LOTR Extended Editions (all) (DTS-ES)
Stargate Ultimate Edition (DTS-ES)
Saving Private Ryan Special Limited Edition (DTS)
Gladiator Signature Selection (DTS-ES)
Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition (DTS)
 
C

cjem

Audioholic Intern
majorloser said:
As Jax just stated, DTS soundtracks are by far the preferred choice with most of us. They are a little tougher to find and in most cases only on special editions.

Some favorites (and good demo material):

LOTR Extended Editions (all) (DTS-ES)
Stargate Ultimate Edition (DTS-ES)
Saving Private Ryan Special Limited Edition (DTS)
Gladiator Signature Selection (DTS-ES)
Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition (DTS)

Thanks all,

I agree I think that DTS is alot better then Dolby Digital.
 
MACCA350

MACCA350

Audioholic Chief
I agree I think that DTS is alot better then Dolby Digital.
Just to be clear, this is not because of the formats themselves, but mostly due to different mastering and DD's dialog norm feature.

Taken from this article
When comparing DTS with 448kbps Dolby Digital (and even, to a lesser degree, 384kbps Dolby Digital) any difference noticeable can more likely be attributed to differences in mastering or production than coding schemes. Under identical mastering conditions the two systems should be nearly indistinguishable from one another.

Any attempt to compare the domestic versions of Dolby Digital and DTS with one another is extremely difficult due to one major technical difference. The domestic version of Dolby Digital incorporates a feature, called 'dialog normalization', designed to maintain a consistent centre-channel volume from all Dolby Digital sources. The dialog normalization system is designed to ensure that the average centre-channel volume is always between -25 and -31dBFS (decibels below digital full-scale), regardless of source. As a result, if dialogue is recorded at a higher volume, the Dolby Digital decoder automatically attenuates the volume of all channels to the level at which the centre-channel outputs dialogue at the set 'dialnorm' level (usually -31dBFS for Dolby Digital on DVD). Most movies' centre-channels are recorded at -27dBFS, which results in an overall lowering of 4dB in all channels. Movies can be recorded at anything from -23dBFS (e.g. 'Wild Things') to -31dBFS (e.g. 'Air Force One', non-SuperBit and 'Twister: SE'), resulting in nominal overall volume attenuation of up to 8dB ('Wild Things') or more. All channels maintain their correct relative balance, so no detrimental sonic effects can be attributed to the dialnorm process. But, because the result can be up to an 8dB reduction in volume, there is no easy way to compare DTS and Dolby Digital versions of a film's soundtrack. The overall volume of the DTS version may be 8dB or more higher than the Dolby Digital soundtrack, making direct comparisons nearly impossible. As dialnorm is constantly variable in 1dB increments, the exact difference in overall volume between Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks often varies from film to film.

Any argument for or against a particular system must be based on competing coding schemas. DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'. An apt analogy is that of the Porsche and the Corvette: the Corvette has a powerful V8, while the Porsche has a smaller engine but is turbo-charged. Both cars use very different power sources, yet both are extremely effective at performing their desired functions. Undoubtedly there will be those who argue for one system over another, but any such argument must be based on individual preference rather than scientific theory. There are no technically valid grounds for believing either audio system is inherently better sounding than the other.
cheers:)
 
Last edited:
R

Rtstrider

Junior Audioholic
I can't wait till the folks @ Scientific Atlanta put DTS decoding in their boxes......And would a bios upgrade fix that, or would it have to be a hardware upgrade?
 
T

tbewick

Senior Audioholic
I've seen that article before and to me it seems slightly biased towards Dolby Digital. I used to say 'you can't compare the two technically... etc.' but most of the time, people prefer DTS. Whether or not this is because DTS is technically superior or not really doesn't matter. In fact, DD has apparently been shown to be non-transparent in a journal. DTS only claim their higher data rate 5.1 version (rarely used in film DVD's nowadays, probably because it's too big) as being transparent.

This site reviews the technical quality of DVD's:

www.dvdscan.com

Most of the time, DTS gets a better review for sound quality. DTS may sound better than DD on lower quality equipment because the tech used in replaying/decoding DTS has less of an effect on sound quality (MACCA350's link offers a better explanation).
 
shokhead

shokhead

Audioholic General
majorloser said:
As Jax just stated, DTS soundtracks are by far the preferred choice with most of us. They are a little tougher to find and in most cases only on special editions.

Some favorites (and good demo material):

LOTR Extended Editions (all) (DTS-ES)
Stargate Ultimate Edition (DTS-ES)
Saving Private Ryan Special Limited Edition (DTS)
Gladiator Signature Selection (DTS-ES)
Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition (DTS)
I just picked up Stargate DTS for 10 bucks in a BB bin and today i found The Mask of Zorro superbit DTS for 10 bucks. Hows SPR DTS? Have you compared it to DD?
 
MACCA350

MACCA350

Audioholic Chief
DTS may sound better than DD on lower quality equipment because the tech used in replaying/decoding DTS has less of an effect on sound quality
Both DTS and DD decoders will decode their streams accuratly, there is no high/low quality decoders for the formats themselves. I think what your refering to is that the DTS decoders are passive(most of the info is stored within the stream) as compared to DD decoders(basic 'core' information is stored in the decoder, which requires less info in the stream)

Unlike linear PCM systems, neither Dolby Digital nor DTS allocate a fixed numbers of bits to any channel. Instead, Dolby Digital and DTS feed their sub-bands/channels from 'global bit-pools'; the total number of bits allocated to any single channel constantly varies as a result. Sub-bands containing frequencies the human ear is more sensitive to are allocated more bits from the available bit-pool than sub-bands the human ear is less able to detect. Individual frequencies within these sub-bands are allocated data depending on their relative perceptibility when compared to neighbouring frequencies (as determined by the perceptual codes' masking algorithms). In DTS's case, a technique called 'forward-adaptive bit-allocation' is used. Using this technique, the allocation of data to each sub-band is pre-determined exclusively by the encoder. This information is explicitly conveyed to the decoder along with the actual bits to be used. Forward-adaptive bit-allocation's primary advantage is that the psychoacoustic model used resides exclusively within the encoder. Because the model is encoder-based, extremely complex psychoacoustic coding algorithms can be used (as decoder processing ability isn't a limiting factor). Forward-adaptive bit-allocation also allows psychoacoustic model modifications and improvements to be passed directly on to installed decoders, essentially 'future-proofing' DTS decoders from premature obsolescence.

Forward-adaptive bit-allocation's primary drawback is that explicit 'side-information', or 'metadata', is needed to direct and control the decoder's allocation of data to sub-bands; this extra information takes up space that might otherwise have been used for audio reproduction. Dolby Digital uses a hybrid technique incorporating elements of both forward- and backward- adaptive bit-allocation. Like DTS encoders, Dolby Digital encoders must also instruct their decoders to allocate bits to particular sub-bands, but don't need to transmit these instructions with such explicit detail. Dolby Digital decoders already include a very basic 'core' copy of Dolby Digital's perceptual coding algorithm. Because the decoder already 'knows' roughly how the bits should be allocated the encoder only needs to transmit information about specific variations from the decoder's own internal algorithm. Dolby Digital's metadata uses relatively little of the available bandwidth, leaving more data available for audio reproduction (which is a good thing, considering Dolby Digital's bit-pool is considerably smaller than DTS Digital Surround's).

Because DTS's sophistication resides almost entirely within the encoder, DTS decoders are 'passive' and relatively simple. Improvements in the Coherent Acoustics coding system can be passed directly to the decoder, allowing improvements in overall audio performance to be utilised by all decoders, regardless of age. Despite the fact that Dolby Digital decoders contain a fixed core AC-3 algorithm, Dolby Digital is also encoder biased. As such, Dolby Digital decoders can also benefit from advances in the AC-3 coding system. Dolby Digital manages to utilise most of the advantages of both backward-adaptive bit-allocation techniques (decoder-based processing, minimal metadata requirements) and forward-adaptive bit-allocation (encoder-based 'intelligence', fully upgradeable coding), while eliminating many of their respective drawbacks
cheers:)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top