 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Get it. posted by Joe Murphy Jr on February 28, 2001 at 22:14:35:
I (a reviewer) agree... DTS beats Dolby Digital every time in every system at every price point and it is not subtle. Quite a few movies have both DTS and DD on the same disc... switch back and forth a few times and you'll see. Given a choice, I'd never listen to DD. That said, if there is nothing else to compare it to, DD can sound pretty good... the James Taylor live performance DVD is an example... seems to sound pretty darn good with only a DD soundtrack. So the difference you will hear is not so much "DD is terrible and DTS is great" - it's more like "5.1 DD is really cool, but 5.1 DTS is even better". I find the DTS soundtracks to sound more like modern digital sound and the DD tracks to sound more like older digital sound - not as transparent, not as detailed, not as "listenable".
Follow Ups:
As far as "reviewers" go, from what I have read, many can't tell the difference, can't hear the difference or think DD is better (?!). You obviously are not in that crowd (one of these guys even said there is negligible difference between 16/44 and 24/96! Hint: he writes for Sound and Vision and is a "well respected" reviewer -- well respected by who? Other "hearing impaired" reviewers?). What do you think about DTS at 1.5Mb/s compared to DTS at 768 kb/s?
Joe, I can understand peoples thoughts about 96khz 24bit, but the truth is many 16bit 44.1khz recordings do sound a lot better, this is mainly due to problems with 96khz 24 bit AD converters that don't sound very good. You won't find many people in the pro audio industry that will admit that, as its not fashionable to assume that new technology doesn't sound as good as old. I guarantee that I could give you a blind listening test of material recorded on minidisc that you wouldn't be able to tell apart from material recorded on 24/96 hard disc. In actual fact a lot of the so called high end AD converters have a mildly brittle quality and poor bass performance, hows that figure?Roland
My comments refer to what I have heard with my ears. I have many CDs that sound awesome due to the fact that so many steps were taken to assure the quality of the digital information that went on the disc. I also have several 24/96 discs (Classic and Chesky) that bring another dimension to the listening experience. I hear details and subtle cues that are more real sounding than what I've heard on CD. Remember, this is in reference to my ears. As to the DTS vs Dolby Digital debate, Dolby Digital sounds great -- until you hear DTS. I actually prefer the PCM Dolby Surround to Dolby Digital. I'm willing to give up the better directional cues and "boomy" one note bass of Dolby Digital to get the fuller and more coherent sound from PCM Dolby Surround. I'm not alone, as I have read many "letters to the editor" and "reader feedback" comments from those that feel the same way. I can hear the difference between DTS at 768 kb/s and DTS at 1.5 mb/s. There are times when much compression is needed and can serve a useful purpose. But, it has to be realized that "compression kills" when it comes to my ears and the ears of many others. As to the MD comment, please. If it sounded as good as the 24/96 recording, there is something inherently wrong with the 24/96 AD or DA converter that is used for comparison. You can't compare a "top of the line" MD setup with a "bottom of the line" 24/96 setup.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
