 
|
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: Have you heard a difference between DTS & Dolby Digital? posted by Estes on January 25, 2002 at 17:56:26:
.
Follow Ups:
I expected some "smart" replies, but if you read the post carefully, I say sometimes one or the other sounds better, as well as sometimes no difference. Granted I don't have the greatest processor in the world, but what I really asking about is given the variations in mastering quality do people consistently hear one as better than another?
It's not the processor, it's the codec. The DTS codec is better at preserving the master ("getting closer to the master" is probably more accurate). The first thing most people notice about Dolby Digital, compared to Dolby Pro-Logic or Dolby Surround, is the channel separation. "WOW", what pinpoint "imaging" you have there! Yea, that's nice (BIG yawn). Unfortunately, because of this so-called advantage, it's also a double-edged sword when compared to DTS and -- yes -- Dolby Pro-Logic. The Dobly Digital codec is so "efficient" (HEAVY sarcasm) it throws away most of the spacial information. It even sounds "compressed" without the dynamic range control on. The ambient cues that our ears use in real life to perceive the environment around us (and those which surround sound systems use to recreate this illusion) gets "shit-canned" by DD. The sense of envelopment that DTS and Dolby Pro-Logic have is not a high point of DD. The soundtrack from DD in a 5.1 system sounds like it's coming from 5 different "points" in space, whereas in a DTS soundtrack it's a 360 degree soundfield. The sense of envelopment is more pronounced and easily perceived on even a modest system when compared to DD. Of course, when needed, DTS can provide for pinpoint imaging. Even Dolby Pro-Logic has a greater sense of envelopment. And just to be clear, when I say Dolby Pro-Logic I'm talking about PCM DPL -- not the Pro-Logic created by downmixing the DD 5.1 track. By the way, I see you have the Technics SH-AC500D. I bought this processor to use in my wife's system along with the A6 receiver (actually bought the two as a combo special). The speakers she uses (for her 5.1 system) cost $99 -- and that's the total for ALL of them. If I can tell the difference on a VERY modest $800 system, well, like I suggested, a visit to the ear doctor may be in order. If you'll search the archives, several people have posted about the drastic improvement in their systems after their ears have been cleaned -- no joke, just do the search.
Joe,Once can easily make the argument that DTS is a worse codec than DD because it uses 2 to 5 times the data for the same results.
Have you ever done some playing around with surround levels on various discs that are both DD and DTS encoded? I bet one of your favorite DTS discs is Gladiator, because it's "so much better" DTS encoded than it is DD encoded.
Actually, what it is, is so much LOUDER in the surrounds than DD. Really. It so happens that we perceive louder as better. I suppose a +6dB difference on surrounds might be considered "louder".
Well, do this, listen to Gladiator at -3dB on the surrounds level for DTS, then listen to the DD track at +3dB on the surrounds level. All of a sudden most (if not all) the differences you perceived will be gone.
I know, I've done the trick, and was a bit surprised.
Would be interesting for you to do this and report back what you thought.
Regards,
> Well, do this, listen to Gladiator at -3dB on the surrounds level for DTS, then listen to the DD track at +3dB on the surrounds level. All of a sudden most (if not all) the differences you perceived will be gone.Been there, done that...
Matched the sound levels with a SPL meter a long time back. The differences did NOT disappear. It wasn't much of a revelation, however. More compression equates to more lost information. Increase the compression on a jpeg image and your picture looks more lowsy.
Interestingly, the differences were much more pronounced on my mid-fi and entry-level hi-end systems. The differences are still apparent on my high-resolution system, but the "gap" in performance is much narrower. Discovered that DD is a lot better than I thought. Still not up to par with DTS, but still better than I thought previously.
If your hearing is good, your equipment is good, and you're not trying to convince yourself there's no difference, you should head over to the tweaker's asylum for guidance. Your system is likely masking the "superiority" of DTS (assuming more detail and realism is a good thing to you).
PS I'm must be really bored to answer this post. kotches, do you work for Dolby?
To me AC-3 always sounded like and Mp3 file (about 160kbits) ,good but nothing amazing , and no wonder just like with mp3 better sounding codecs have been invented using less data .How old is AC-3 ,dunno but been around for a long time , codecs get better but not if they built it into hardware, DTS to me definently sounds better ,more open , just like a comparison between a 128k mp3 and 360k mp3(vbr) ,the later will always sound better (unless u used sum truly weird settings),DD uses sum compression which certainly doesnt help it either (yeah it might sound better to us just like a FM radio at times might sound better in the car than a cd player simply because they squashed the hell out of it) ultimately transparency is the definition of the quality of any sound reproduction. Certainly if DD was using the same bitrates as DTS it would be a more defining comparison.
Of course after hearing some receivers I am not sure if it matters at all , buy the time the signal gets through it sounds flat as hell.I am a big fan of absolute minimal sound processing , but I guess in Home Theaters u gotta have the cash for something like that.What I am hoping for is what they did with mp3v2 , its still compatible with old hardware players but if you got the new player u get much better quality ,they could do that with AC-3 maybe, dunno...
Corbett,Ahh yes, the "more bits is better" argument. This is a valid assumption only if identical methods are employed, they aren't.
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that the better ones system gets, the closer the two codecs sound. After you account for known volume differentials, they are closer still.
I used to think, "DTS uses more bits, so it must be better". Now I know there's a lot more going on than DTS' use of more bits. In theory both codecs should be perceived as transparent to the input, but that isn't the way it works in the real world.
You said:
"If your hearing is good, your equipment is good, and you're not trying to convince yourself there's no difference, you should head over to the tweaker's asylum for guidance. Your system is likely masking the 'superiority' of DTS (assuming more detail and realism is a good thing to you)."Has it occurred to you, that the converse could also be true, that you're trying to convince yourself that DTS is superior, so you hear just that? Nah, that could never be the case. Also, was the thinly veiled insult warranted?
As for my employer, nope, I work for IBM, and am quite happy making my primary income from that source.
I'm not saying DD is better than DTS or vice versa, I'm saying the answer lies far deeper than just Codec A uses more bits out of the available bucket.
Regards,
The issue in my setup is likely the placement of the rear channels vs. seating position. I am still somewhat new to the details of HT and I am still figuring things out. Since my front speakers provide decent imagining, I am used to having a decent stereo soundfield, the rears sometimes give me what you are talking about, sometimes they don't. That was really why I posted the question. I need to do some more fussing with the rear speakers. My hearing was checked three years ago and was "normal."
Make sure you are using the processor at "full" volume (0dB on the volume setting). The volume control is in the digital domain and will rob you of "bits" of information if it is used as an actual volume control. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it. But if you allow a receiver to control the volume via 5.1 analog inputs, you'll retain all of the info. And yes, proper setup can be a bitch, especially if the cables for the surrounds are run up the wall across the attic to where the roof meets the adjoining frame! The ole "I don't want to see all of the wires" routine. On a brighter side, I'm glad to see that your hearing is "normal". I'm about 85% deaf.
The volume control does WHAT?!?! I guess that explains the problem. I use it as the volume control and then run it into my passive preamp. Basically it is an add on to my 2 channel system. I guess I will have to look for another processor at some point down the road.
nt
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 ]
