I have a Pioneer vsx-d906s (boy was it expensive when it first came out) and i really like it. However, it does not have DTS, which at the time was kinda rare.
Before going to upgrade to DTS, truth be told i haven't heard much of a difference. Then again, the only time i really hear DTS is when i am at a theatre, and both DD and DTS sounds the same at the theatre.
For the most part, i've noticed in reviews that DTS is always edgeing out DD 5.1. Most reviewers say its "slightly better" or something along those lines.
I'm thinking, maybe the reason DTS always gets the edge is because a psychological effect. The reviewers, be it DVD reviewers or you guys, just think "Well, it has extra bandwidth, etc..." and thus it sounds better.
I'm not anti-DTS, as when i'm at home it is not often i can even enjoy DD 5.1 (people in the house complain so i usually listen at a low volume level), i'm just wondering if it is better because a psychological reasoning.
Has anyone else considered this?
S!
Blade
05-09-02, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Shafted!
Then again, the only time i really hear DTS is when i am at a theatre, and both DD and DTS sounds the same at the theatre.Not the same thing. Movie theater sound and the processes used to compress audio to fit on a DVD (DD and DTS) are two different things.Has anyone else considered this?I think that's what they mean when the DTS naysayers say "it's all in your head" or "you just think you can hear a difference. ;)
I've done a few comparisons, but on old, old speakers. I hear a little bit of a difference. It's also different from movie to movie. I wouldn't upgrade just to get DTS, but the next receiver or decoder you buy will almost certainly have it.
I like to describe the difference like this: DD is like having your favorite ice cream; DTS is like having your favorite ice cream with your favorite topping on it. Is DTS better? Yes, but then, DD isn't any slouch either.
Just my opinion, of course. This may change once I get my new speakers hooked up. :)
-David
mdX
05-09-02, 05:26 PM
Not the same thing. Movie theater sound and the processes used to compress audio to fit on a DVD (DD and DTS) are two different things.
well, kinda. Threatical DD uses the same algorithm to compress as Home DD, just a different bitrate (320kbps for theatrical, 384 for LD, 384/448 for dvd). DTS however does use a completely different algorithm theatrically than for home.
bfrank
05-09-02, 06:40 PM
In controlled blind tests (this is the big difference with many examples people make) done by the dvd forum with professionals found that the differences were minimal which lead to the selection of DD as the standard for DVD.
This is an old and tired debate. I will tell you that I have done blind test before and you would be amazed at how hard it is to select something that you though was very obvious when you could see what you are listening to.
Most A-B test now are flawed because most disks are remastered fro DTS (which helps them sound better) instead of a straight (exual) transfers. But that said if they sound better (even due to remastering) then they are better.
I will tell you IMO that the difference is very minor and in a blind test very few (almost no one) would be able to pick the DTS 10 out of 10 times.
DVD_O_Rama
05-09-02, 08:53 PM
The ironic thing (at least to me, anyway) is that you always hear <i>"well, it only sounds a little better"</i>...or <i>"the dts track only sounded slightly better"</i>. Isn't a little improvement still an improvement? I have only heard of a very, very small handful of people who ever prefered a DD track to a dts track, and didn't really have a reason why. Go figure.
Sure, there are a few who jump on the pro-dts bandwagon and can't tell the difference either, yet make a hell of a fuss about the matter in forums like this, but there are people like myself who actually <i>can</i> hear improvements on dts tracks. And no, not all are improved. Recent dts tracks being mixed in-house by studios sound almost identical to their DD counterparts.
So, which codec is better? Who cares. I don't waste my time bitching about alogorithims and soundtrack codecs and which one is superior. My ears are my guide. Is the reason behind some superior sounding dts tracks "all in the mix"? Then so be it. if the mix sweetens the sound to my ears, then it's the one I will choose, regardless of codec.
And also, be aware that equipment <b>does</b> make a difference. If your gear can't handle the increased bass response or subtle nuances in soundstage depth, it really doesn't matter.
Of course, YMMV.
bfrank
05-09-02, 10:19 PM
Agreed - there is no doubt that DTS is a better format. The facts are in the numbers and can not be argued. What can be argued is how much the difference is and if people can really tell.
I suggest that you read the writings of Dr. Floyd Toole about testing and the effects of psychological input. I worked with him for years. I would have been in your camp also until he put me through some of his blind tests. If you know what you are listening to you cant be a fair judge.
I cant even start to explain the scientific problems with almost any test or the lengths this man has gone to to eliminate them.
I was in a test of a speaker that I help design. We had two other speakers in the test. We had three tracks (they and the speakers were all matched for level). We have to repeat the test thee days in a row. The first day I knew which was our speaker. The next day I could not find it! It was so clear on the first day. This test changed my view of anyone that says I can hear it every time. That use to be me :D
Back to the main point- these "controlled" test were done by industry professionals for the DVD council and they could not select DTS 10 out of 10 times. I will suggest none of use could either in a controlled blind test. If DTS was clearly better it would have been the standard selected.
SilentBobrulez
05-10-02, 01:58 AM
Well i guess DTS is a wallet thing for me too. I will upgrade my receiver soon to DTS 6.1 ES. I want better sound and lower base (even though i told to keep it down when its at 1/5 its power) At my movie theater their are to 2 different head readers for DD or DTS. One will read the sound from the film and produce it for the audience DD (sound is in between each notch hole on the film). Now for DTS another light will pick up on the DTS track on the film and then have the sound produced from a CD disc to the audience. (found on film near notch wholes but look like sound wave lines)
mdX
05-10-02, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by bfrank
In controlled blind tests (this is the big difference with many examples people make) done by the dvd forum with professionals found that the differences were minimal which lead to the selection of DD as the standard for DVD.
untrue. The main reason DTS was not selected as the sound format of choice on DVD is because DTS didn't have their "home version" finished in time, and Dolby Digital (AC-3 at the time) beat out the other competitors.
granted, even if they had, Dolby probably still would have won given that half-bitrate DTS didn't exist at the time, and given the marginal (on average HTs) differences when using the same mix, 1507kbps vs 384/448kpbs is a no-brainer
Josh Z
05-10-02, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by mdX
untrue. The main reason DTS was not selected as the sound format of choice on DVD is because DTS didn't have their "home version" finished in time, and Dolby Digital (AC-3 at the time) beat out the other competitors.
Not hardly.
The home version of DTS was already well established on laserdisc long before DVD hit the market. The real reason Dolby Digital was chosen as the default standard is because their licensing fees were lower than DTS. It's as simple as that.
eedoon
05-10-02, 10:53 AM
On most cases, DTS are better than DD. I always been objective on most things (except everything that has something to do with personal taste). But DTS are louder, livelier and has better quality of sound than DD. The differences are not too significant, but it's there.
mdX
05-10-02, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Josh Z
Not hardly.
The home version of DTS was already well established on laserdisc long before DVD hit the market. The real reason Dolby Digital was chosen as the default standard is because their licensing fees were lower than DTS. It's as simple as that.
go check the date when the DVD-Video Spec was finalized (circa sept 1995). Home DTS did not appear on LD until 1997 (with Jurassic Park), and the DVD spec was obviously finalized well before that. Licensing fees had nothing to do with it.
DVD_O_Rama
05-10-02, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by bfrank
Agreed - there is no doubt that DTS is a better format. The facts are in the numbers and can not be argued. What can be argued is how much the difference is and if people can really tell.
I suggest that you read the writings of Dr. Floyd Toole about testing and the effects of psychological input. I worked with him for years. I would have been in your camp also until he put me through some of his blind tests. If you know what you are listening to you cant be a fair judge.
I cant even start to explain the scientific problems with almost any test or the lengths this man has gone to to eliminate them.
I was in a test of a speaker that I help design. We had two other speakers in the test. We had three tracks (they and the speakers were all matched for level). We have to repeat the test thee days in a row. The first day I knew which was our speaker. The next day I could not find it! It was so clear on the first day. This test changed my view of anyone that says I can hear it every time. That use to be me :D
Back to the main point- these "controlled" test were done by industry professionals for the DVD council and they could not select DTS 10 out of 10 times. I will suggest none of use could either in a controlled blind test. If DTS was clearly better it would have been the standard selected.
Ahh...the 'ol double-blind test.
That's one of the things that cracks me up the most. I do not need a double blind test to prove anything to me. If it sounds better to me in my home, it <b>does</b> sound better. Period.
As I said, not all dts soundtracks are leaps and bounds above DD tracks, and that's fine with me. I am not a dts-only freak, but rather a superior soundtrack freak ( a superior soundtrack <i>super-freak</i>, actually ;))
I don't buy equipment because someone else says it sounds better; I let my own ears be the judge, and every single piece of audio equipment I own was auditioned prior to purchase. I don't need a double-blind test to tell me what sounds good. Am I hearing what I want to? Maybe. But...isn't that the whole point?
Of course, YMMV.
JimRochester
05-10-02, 04:47 PM
I personally think the DTS soundtrack is better than the DD on every disc but one; The Rock CC. However "better" could span the range of better "dialogue clarity" to "rock the house". I think it is largely a moot point, as you upgrade anything you get now will have DTS capability and most discs that offer DTS now do it on one disc so you don't have to forfeit extras like in the early days of the format. Although I think DTS is decidedly better I wouldn't run out and upgrade all my equipment especially if you usually have to listen at a low level.
bfrank
05-10-02, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by DVD_O_Rama
Ahh...the 'ol double-blind test.
That's one of the things that cracks me up the most. I do not need a double blind test to prove anything to me. If it sounds better to me in my home, it <b>does</b> sound better. Period.
I am not trying to say you are wrong. Just sharing my experience. I felt the same as you until I went through these test.
What Dr. Toole has taught the industry is the opposite of what you have just said. If you know what you are listening to it is not possible for you to be an impartial judge. This is accepted fact by the Acoustical Engineering Society (AES).
I dont even doubt that you could select the DTS track in a double blind test every time. But that is not the topic of this thread. Could the average listener? I will tell you from my experience as an engineer in the industry that my answer is many could not.
But again there is no arguing that it is a better format.
audrey
05-10-02, 09:43 PM
While bind tests certainly have their proponents, there are also those who believe these tests---even double blind test---are inherently flawed. I think most people who have participated in one of these tests will agree the experience is stressful and differs from how we normally listen to music or watch movies. For example, these tests typically play out over a very brief period of time where it is difficult to evaluate subtle differences, assess listening fatigue, etc.
Regardless of how one feels about blind testing, if you take a pill and it cures your headache, does it really matter to you if the pill turns out to be a placebo?
DVD_O_Rama
05-10-02, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by audrey
Regardless of how one feels about blind testing, if you take a pill and it cures your headache, does it really matter to you if the pill turns out to be a placebo?
Exactly.
That was my whole point, and I reinterate that while I appreciate the fact that some people have the time/desire to perform these type of tests, I do not.
In my home I don't need to be impartial. If I listen to a dts track and the DD sounds better, then I'd listen to that one instead, although I have yet to have that happen.
And actually, I haven't heard a single DVD yet that sounded as good or better then a full bit-rate dts LD.
Placebo? Perhaps. Does that make the smile on my face any smaller or then sense of sonic bliss any less enjoyable? Nope.
Cheers.
SilentBobrulez
05-11-02, 01:10 AM
Well today when i was on projection we had to switch the Dolby Digital Head with one of the other projector. The only one we could do so was with a DTS head. So heard Spider-Man in DTS and wow what a difference from the DD. I thought the dialog and the sound effects were a lot crisper and that the base was a bit stronger. As i sually can't feel it in the booth . . . . today i did
bfrank
05-11-02, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by DVD_O_Rama
Exactly.
That was my whole point, and I reinterate that while I appreciate the fact that some people have the time/desire to perform these type of tests, I do not.
In my home I don't need to be impartial. If I listen to a dts track and the DD sounds better, then I'd listen to that one instead, although I have yet to have that happen.
And actually, I haven't heard a single DVD yet that sounded as good or better then a full bit-rate dts LD.
Placebo? Perhaps. Does that make the smile on my face any smaller or then sense of sonic bliss any less enjoyable? Nope.
Cheers.
Buy: