|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Heard from my A/V dealer today that Spielberg has pulled his funding from DTS DVDs. Was told that only one studio is now supporting DTS. He thought that DTS would be going the way of DIVX shortly, at least with regards to DVDs. Anyone else heard about this?
Forget all of the bickering over whether Dolby Digital sounds better than DTS. Personally, I think both options were viable and believe most people would choose the less compressed sound if they were able to make comparisons and had the choice, provided reasonable support and comparable cost of software. The latter factor may well be the reason that DTS failed to make an impression on the market.I think it's truly unfortunate for those who bought DTS decoders or DTS/Dolby decoders and prefer the sound DTS decoded discs over product put out by the monopolistic Dolby.
Just my 2 cents.
AuPh
When the DVD-Audio standard was announced and DTS was no where to be seen, I saw the end. I don't think the public wants or needs two DVD formats, especially when the alternative format, DTS is comparable to DD, not superior.
It seems only fitting. DTS and Divx are one in the same! No 2 other formats have done so much harm in confusing the public. Both of these formats have stunted the growth of DVD. Just think, if DTS and Divx never confused the public, DVD players might be $150 and in most homes. DD decoders and receivers would have had the lower prices of today, but yesterday. DTS' death will not come soon enough. The icing on the cake is that DTS sounds the same or worse than DD, plus takes much more data space.Home Theater professionals have done the closest balancing of channel levels that could be done. They found the sound quality the same. In some cases, they prefered the DD soundtrack. Dolby Digital has been found to be the more accurate encoding method. The DD soundtrack's levels and mastering are closer to the original than DTS. This has been stated in many different magazines. DTS is considered less accurate than DD. Stereo Review did a sophisticated comparison on the mixing and channel levels on the 2 formats. They compared directly against the original studio soundtrack which was 6 channel PCM. DTS and DD encode that soundtrack into their formats. When the final release comes to theaters, DTS', SDDS' and DD's formats are used for the encoding and decoding of the soundtrack. DTS supporters say that the DVD's DTS soundtrack is very accurate compared to the theater released DTS soundtrack. That could be true. If the theater release isn't as accurate as DD's, how could the DVD's DTS be? Simple, it couldn't. Some may believe DTS sounds better because of less compression and a higher bit rate, but what about the codec? The bit rate means NOTHING. The codec is the meat of the matter. If the codec isn't efficent, of course it needs a higher data rate. This higher bit rate is a disadvantage, not an advantage. It takes up much more space than it should, for what it offers. Dolby Digital takes much less space because of it's higher compression, lower bit rate. That lower bit rate is used because of Dolby Digital's much more efficent codec. When will people see that DTS advertises the bit rate as a GIMMICK. It has nothing to do with the overall sound. The Atrac encoding method uses 20 bit resolution over CD's PCM 16 bits. Does this mean that a 20 bit recorded mini disc will sound better than a CD. Quite the opposite, with very detailed music.
Could you tell me more about `codec'?No offense, but your lecture's example seemed like the proverbial apples & oranges, because I believe the MD's flaw is temporal compression defined by a louder noise gate. Thus, reducing its effective sample rate.
DTS was dead before it was introduced. Dolby Digital is the standard, period.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: