DTS vs Dolby Digital 5.1

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho I read the above link and it was a good and interesting read. I will admit that I probably didn't get everything out of the article that was in there but I learned a lot from it. Essentially what I took away from it was that the track differences have more to do with the engineer/producer who is making the movie than the format it is in. Though I do have one question then, the article mentionted that DTS was sometimes more popular with the audiophile crowd... and this is a marketing question I suppose.... could one assume that if a publisher wanted to attract that crowd its easier for them to put a DTS logo on the box rather than try to explain the audio mixes?

I realize its a somewhat subjective/rediculous question, but the majority of movies I have listened to that support DTS do have better audio quality than those that don't. Just becasue two things are present doesn't mean there is correlation... that I understand.... just sort of thinking out lould.

As before, MACCA350 has responded before me, and responded well. DTS is almost always only on relatively new, big budget films that were recorded with good sound. So, when you think about old films, they usually will have some sort of Dolby Digital track (very few use the PCM option) and no DTS track. So if it has Dolby Digital, it tells you nothing about the sound quality; it could be very poor, or spectacular. With DTS, it is almost always used only on big budget, multichannel soundtracks (the one exception I can think of is the Superbit edition of From Here to Eternity, which has the original mono soundtrack on Dolby Digital, and a new multichannel mix in DTS). So, DTS films will pretty much always have a well recorded soundtrack (whether you listen to the DTS or DD version on the disc). Also, I am told, DTS soundtracks are often mixed with higher levels in the surrounds, and some people like that, and will therefore select DTS as their preference.

As for why "audiophiles" tend to prefer DTS, there is the fact that movies that have both pretty much always have good soundtracks, and so people associate DTS with good sound and not Dolby Digital. Also, many foolishly imagine that a larger bitrate must mean better sound. That is foolish for reasons discussed in the link in the first reply to you, though, briefly, one uses more data that tells the decoder how to decode, so it is not audio data, and also the way the data is selected for omission matters as much or more than how much data is omitted (both DTS and Dolby Digital are "lossy" compressed formats which throw away data, like MP3s). Additionally, when switching between DTS and Dolby Digital, typically the DTS soundtrack is louder, which makes it preferred, as human hearing is not linear, so the bass and treble subjectively appear greater (by being louder, not by actually having more bass or treble, though, obviously, with any new mix, someone could artificially boost the bass and/or treble). This non-linear aspect of human hearing is why so many two channel receivers of the past have "loudness compensation" switches which boost the bass (and usually the treble) to compensate for a low volume setting. You can observe this non-linear affect for yourself; simply play some music that has a lot of bass in it, and play with the volume control. As you turn the volume down, the bass and treble appear to diminish faster than the midrange. So a slightly louder sound, even if otherwise exactly the same, will seem to have more bass and more treble, and seem "clearer" and more "detailed" (of course one can hear more details if the sound is a little louder!). Now, if you had two soundtracks that were exactly the same except for the volume, you could make them sound exactly the same by adjusting the volume control to compensate for the difference, so one would not be better for being a little louder (unless some engineer really got the levels way off what they should be, so that sound is lost into the noise floor or distorted being at too high of a level).

 

[AndrewLyles]

As always, quite informative and helpful. Thanks for all of the feedback.

 

[Daz3d&Confus3d]

Yes very informative!!! thx guys!!!

 

[ruadmaa]

Sure Wish You Had Been Around

As before, MACCA350 has responded before me, and responded well. DTS is almost always only on relatively new, big budget films that were recorded with good sound. So, when you think about old films, they usually will have some sort of Dolby Digital track (very few use the PCM option) and no DTS track. So if it has Dolby Digital, it tells you nothing about the sound quality; it could be very poor, or spectacular. With DTS, it is almost always used only on big budget, multichannel soundtracks (the one exception I can think of is the Superbit edition of From Here to Eternity, which has the original mono soundtrack on Dolby Digital, and a new multichannel mix in DTS). So, DTS films will pretty much always have a well recorded soundtrack (whether you listen to the DTS or DD version on the disc). Also, I am told, DTS soundtracks are often mixed with higher levels in the surrounds, and some people like that, and will therefore select DTS as their preference.

As for why "audiophiles" tend to prefer DTS, there is the fact that movies that have both pretty much always have good soundtracks, and so people associate DTS with good sound and not Dolby Digital. Also, many foolishly imagine that a larger bitrate must mean better sound. That is foolish for reasons discussed in the link in the first reply to you, though, briefly, one uses more data that tells the decoder how to decode, so it is not audio data, and also the way the data is selected for omission matters as much or more than how much data is omitted (both DTS and Dolby Digital are "lossy" compressed formats which throw away data, like MP3s). Additionally, when switching between DTS and Dolby Digital, typically the DTS soundtrack is louder, which makes it preferred, as human hearing is not linear, so the bass and treble subjectively appear greater (by being louder, not by actually having more bass or treble, though, obviously, with any new mix, someone could artificially boost the bass and/or treble). This non-linear aspect of human hearing is why so many two channel receivers of the past have "loudness compensation" switches which boost the bass (and usually the treble) to compensate for a low volume setting. You can observe this non-linear affect for yourself; simply play some music that has a lot of bass in it, and play with the volume control. As you turn the volume down, the bass and treble appear to diminish faster than the midrange. So a slightly louder sound, even if otherwise exactly the same, will seem to have more bass and more treble, and seem "clearer" and more "detailed" (of course one can hear more details if the sound is a little louder!). Now, if you had two soundtracks that were exactly the same except for the volume, you could make them sound exactly the same by adjusting the volume control to compensate for the difference, so one would not be better for being a little louder (unless some engineer really got the levels way off what they should be, so that sound is lost into the noise floor or distorted being at too high of a level).

When HDTV was first coming out there was a HDTV web site run by a Richard Fisher. The site was absolutely loaded with audio/video snobs. In a posting I had mentioned that Dolby Digital was very comparable to DTS and was all but blown out of the water, being told how stupid I was and that my equipment was most likely so poor as not to be able to tell the difference.

Sure wish I would have had your posting at that time.

 

[merv43]

So I know this is kind of a noob question, but I'm rewatching all of my DVD's now that I've got my new setup installed... mostly . For the first time I"m noticing a difference between DTS encoded and Dobly digital 5.1 encoded movies. DTS encoded movies tend to have more ambient noice going on in the surround channels, like there is more total information throughout the entire audio track, while for the most part DD-5.1 seems to be used just for main effects.

Can somebody fill me in as to what exactly the difference is? The one exception to this I've noticed was the new Special edition of Gladiator (3-disc widescreen version) which claims is only encoded in DD-5.1. THis movie did a spectacular job of ambiant sount comming through the surround channels, though not as well as some of the Better DTS movies I"ve watched recently.

Quick recap... whats the difference between DTS and Dobly Digital 5.1?
Thanks All.

typicly, you will notice a marginal difference in sound quality between the too. DTS uses less compression and the difference is usualy easy to detect. The more reveling your sound system is will have an effect on how much difference you will hear. For example take the movie HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS, in the drum sequence the difference between DD and DTS can be very subtle to absolute day and night difference depending on the playback system. On a quality sound system you will hear significant differences between the two on this movie. Some movies it is a little more difficult to hear the difference. I have always found the DTS sound track (if offered on the dvd) to be the best sounding. Once in a while you will run accross a DD sound track with greater bass but usualy the DTS will sound better overall.

 

[CAVau]

*DTS Simplified*

AndrewLyles, To simplify thngs DTS uses less compression, Your own ears are the best judge here between DTS & DD.

To make it even easier for you check out this link, punch in your movies in the search tab, and you wil notice that the reviews tend to favour the DTS track.

DVDreviews

 

[MACCA350]

Sorry guys, but as stated before, it's not that simple. You can't compare the two just on bitrate. Have a read through the earlier posts and links.

cheers

 

[merv43]

Sorry guys, but as stated before, it's not that simple. You can't compare the two just on bitrate. Have a read through the earlier posts and links.

cheers

I am not comparing bitrate, mearly sound alone. On the few dvd's that have both DD and DTS, I have found that the DTS sound track is marginaly better to way better than DD, and that the quality of the playback system will either magnify this or render it similar.

 

[j_garcia]

Merv, you directly said DTS uses less compression, and that would roughly equate to comparing bitrates. DTS uses a higher bitrate, but they are both capable of about the same end result due with those bitrates to the fact that the codecs are different. I have to say that if given a choice, I always choose the DTS track. I have found that more often than not, the DTS track sounds great to my ears too, but that is not because DTS is "better" than DD.

It is nearly impossible to compare them directly to one another because they usually use different masters, and are also usually mixed by different engineers, so which one will be "better" is not so cut and dry. It's kind of like comparing CD to SACD - just because SACD has theoretically more resolution available doesn't automatically mean it will sound dramatically better just because of that - use a crappy master and the SACD can still sound like a regular CD. How they are mixed/mastered has a lot to do with the final product for both DD/DTS and CD/SACD.

In the end, it is really up to each individual to form their own opinion.

 

[MACCA350]

Also DD uses Dialogue Normalization which makes a direct comparison inaccurate. Due to this, DTS tracks are on adverage 4db louder than their DD counterparts. Add to this the difference in mixing, DTS can be up to 10db hotter.

cheers

 

[AndrewLyles]

Also DD uses Dialogue Normalization which makes a direct comparison inaccurate. Due to this, DTS tracks are on adverage 4db louder than their DD counterparts. Add to this the difference in mixing, DTS can be up to 10db hotter.

cheers

What is Dialogue Normalization? Sounds interesting.

 

[MDS]

What is Dialogue Normalization? Sounds interesting.

A DD bitstream may include a value called DialNorm. The value indicates how the average level of dialog differs from the Dolby recommended standard of -31 dB. For example, if the DialNorm value is -27 dB, the processor will attenuate the level by 4 dB to bring the level to -31 dB.

It's an attempt to keep the level similar between soundtracks but relies on the mastering engineer to properly calculate the average dialog level and include the DialNorm value in the bitstream.

 

[merv43]

Merv, you directly said DTS uses less compression, and that would roughly equate to comparing bitrates. DTS uses a higher bitrate, but they are both capable of about the same end result due with those bitrates to the fact that the codecs are different. I have to say that if given a choice, I always choose the DTS track. I have found that more often than not, the DTS track sounds great to my ears too, but that is not because DTS is "better" than DD.

It is nearly impossible to compare them directly to one another because they usually use different masters, and are also usually mixed by different engineers, so which one will be "better" is not so cut and dry. It's kind of like comparing CD to SACD - just because SACD has theoretically more resolution available doesn't automatically mean it will sound dramatically better just because of that - use a crappy master and the SACD can still sound like a regular CD. How they are mixed/mastered has a lot to do with the final product for both DD/DTS and CD/SACD.

In the end, it is really up to each individual to form their own opinion.

j garcia I hear what you are saying, but you are also saying that DTS is not better than DD, ok if this is true why then do you and likely most people here on this fourm go straight to the DTS soundtrack if it is available on the disc? If they are using different masters as you have indicated and different engineers which I am sure theydo, why then do we continue to still have such disparity between DD and DTS, I would hope that DD does not always get the poor master each time and does this mean that DTS has better engineers? In the end all we have is the dvd's themselves to compare, how else could we form an opinion? I am not trying to knock DD, I listend and watch with great joy many movies with DD, I have just not found any DD discs that I could say that are on a par with or better than the same disc with DTS. This is why I have indicated that In my opinion that DTS is the better of the two if you have an option on the disc. I do agree with you that it is up to each individual to form their own opinion, i would also add that the play back system can have a huge impact on that decision.

 

[j_garcia]

Someone mentioned that the DTS tracks tend to be a few dB higher in level in general. This alone can give the perception that the sound is better. I actually rarely compare the DTS to DD tracks on a disc with both; I just listen to the DTS track I have heard plenty of very impressive DD mixes too though. All I am saying is, there is no definitive answer becaues both formats are capable of producing great sound.

I agree the system plays a role too. A $500 HTiB isn't going to give the same impression that a $5K system will.

 

[merv43]

Someone mentioned that the DTS tracks tend to be a few dB higher in level in general. This alone can give the perception that the sound is better. I actually rarely compare the DTS to DD tracks on a disc with both; I just listen to the DTS track I have heard plenty of very impressive DD mixes too though. All I am saying is, there is no definitive answer becaues both formats are capable of producing great sound.

I agree the system plays a role too. A $500 HTiB isn't going to give the same impression that a $5K system will.

Good point, I can find nothing to fault with the great sound tracks to Star Wars, indian jones and others that are DD alone, and with the excellant quality of your system I am sure you are able to pull the very best from both DTS and DD. Thanks for your insight. p.s. can not wait for the new DD+ and DTS HD.

 

[j_garcia]

p.s. can not wait for the new DD+ and DTS HD.

and then we will have a new question to discuss at length again...

 

[LCRush]

Interesting discussion. I have just purchased several AIX recordings. Some have what they call "stage" listening, which is DTS and also have "audience", which is Dolby 5.1. Using my Denon DVD player, I can switch back and forth. I will tell you that the stage setting (dts) volume is lower and needs to be turned up, when compared to the dolby 5.1. There is more ambient sound, from the rear surround speakers, with the Dolby 5.1. Now, this is to my ear. I cannot tell which I like better, as they both sound super. These are new disks for me and I want to listen more to them. Some also have a DVDA side which I have as yet compared, because you cannot switch back and forth without flipping the disk. This discussion stated that the DTS sound tracks are louder. Is that only for movie DVDs? This is not true for these AIX recordings. These are probably the best sound of all the SACDs and DVDAs tht I have purchased since setting up my surround sound system.

 

[MACCA350]

The DD and DTS tracks on those AIX recordings are mixed completely different and for different purposes. I like their philosophy and approach to recording high quality music. I'd love to hear some of their recordings.

cheers

 

[shokhead]

Interesting discussion. I have just purchased several AIX recordings. Some have what they call "stage" listening, which is DTS and also have "audience", which is Dolby 5.1. Using my Denon DVD player, I can switch back and forth. I will tell you that the stage setting (dts) volume is lower and needs to be turned up, when compared to the dolby 5.1. There is more ambient sound, from the rear surround speakers, with the Dolby 5.1. Now, this is to my ear. I cannot tell which I like better, as they both sound super. These are new disks for me and I want to listen more to them. Some also have a DVDA side which I have as yet compared, because you cannot switch back and forth without flipping the disk. This discussion stated that the DTS sound tracks are louder. Is that only for movie DVDs? This is not true for these AIX recordings. These are probably the best sound of all the SACDs and DVDAs tht I have purchased since setting up my surround sound system.

Cant really compare DD and DTS to DVD-A and SACD. One needs the receiver and the other the player. One is recorded much differently then the other.

 

[Pyrrho]

When HDTV was first coming out there was a HDTV web site run by a Richard Fisher. The site was absolutely loaded with audio/video snobs. In a posting I had mentioned that Dolby Digital was very comparable to DTS and was all but blown out of the water, being told how stupid I was and that my equipment was most likely so poor as not to be able to tell the difference.

Sure wish I would have had your posting at that time.

Very often, audio snobs do not listen to reason, and become abusive when their fairy tales are questioned or revealed. Think of anyone who believes in a false religion (as all different religions contradict each other, at most, one is completely true, though they could all involve falsehood), and think about their reaction if you attempt to show that it is false. That should give you the idea of how many people react in audio. So you are likely to have gotten the same response even if armed with the links and information in this thread. True believers in audio nonsense typically avoid reading things that involve real information, and instead read only what reinforces their current beliefs (if they read anything at all). The "DTS is better because it is less compressed" myth is not likely to ever die, as long as people still listen to the current formats. In fact, we even keep seeing it in this very thread, even after it has been shown to be an unwarranted belief.

(If someone is reading this and wondering about it, you need to read this thread from the beginning, and read the article at the first link you encounter.)