 
|
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: DTS posted by Joe Murphy Jr on January 26, 2002 at 16:42:44:
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,
Follow Ups:
> 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,
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 ]