In Reply to: Re: DTS posted by Corbett on January 28, 2002 at 12:06:33:
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:
Follow Ups
- Re: DTS - kotches 23:07:20 01/28/02 (0)