How much more room does DTS take up than DD?
02-11-04 | 02:19 PM
#26
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Independence, Ky
dts bashers with the same flawed argument...
02-11-04 | 02:40 PM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 1,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Easton, PA
Originally posted by DonnachaOne
dts bashers with the same flawed argument...
I agree that sometimes a dts mix can sound the same as the dolby mix. Sometime's it's just not worth the bother.
But knocking dts as saying it's "just louder"? That's stupid and you know it. Many of my DVDs have the dts and Dolby mixed at the same level. The dts sounds better, and I'm not rationalizing - I try not to waste my money, thank you. I follow reviews from smart people who themselves make accurate comparisons. That's why I still do not have the R3 Black Hawk Down Superbit... I don't want to waste money over three letters without an accurate comparison I can trust. Saying "people think dts is better because it's louder and has pretty red letters" is not only an idiotic argument, but an insult to the reviewers who put a lot of work into their reviews of a film's audio.
Time and time again, the dts has succeeded the Dolby. This is not opinion. It is fact. I am not suggesting it is ALWAYS better, far from it (as The Rock and Pearl Harbor can attest to) - but most of the time, it is just as good as the Dolby or better.
dts bashers with the same flawed argument...
I agree that sometimes a dts mix can sound the same as the dolby mix. Sometime's it's just not worth the bother.
But knocking dts as saying it's "just louder"? That's stupid and you know it. Many of my DVDs have the dts and Dolby mixed at the same level. The dts sounds better, and I'm not rationalizing - I try not to waste my money, thank you. I follow reviews from smart people who themselves make accurate comparisons. That's why I still do not have the R3 Black Hawk Down Superbit... I don't want to waste money over three letters without an accurate comparison I can trust. Saying "people think dts is better because it's louder and has pretty red letters" is not only an idiotic argument, but an insult to the reviewers who put a lot of work into their reviews of a film's audio.
Time and time again, the dts has succeeded the Dolby. This is not opinion. It is fact. I am not suggesting it is ALWAYS better, far from it (as The Rock and Pearl Harbor can attest to) - but most of the time, it is just as good as the Dolby or better.
I agree with everything you've said above but lately I feel DTS has not been enough of an improvement to go out of your way to get it. Early DTS releases were full bitrate and a different, improved sound mix but more often then not recently they're the same mix and at half bitrate which makes the improvement less noticable.
Now you're one who seems to search out to see if there is a difference when there are choices but many folks blindly buy into the DTS is always better way of thinking and buy or not based on nothing but a DTS logo on the spec list. I've read so many posts from people knocking a release because it doesn't have DTS when they have no valid case that there would be an improvment over the DD mix.
02-11-04 | 03:59 PM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Indy Jones Fan
I'll take a bass-heavy mix over a slightly better surround mix any day.
I'll take a bass-heavy mix over a slightly better surround mix any day.
Originally posted by chipmac
I agree with everything you've said above but lately I feel DTS has not been enough of an improvement to go out of your way to get it. Early DTS releases were full bitrate and a different, improved sound mix but more often then not recently they're the same mix and at half bitrate which makes the improvement less noticable.
Now you're one who seems to search out to see if there is a difference when there are choices but many folks blindly buy into the DTS is always better way of thinking and buy or not based on nothing but a DTS logo on the spec list. I've read so many posts from people knocking a release because it doesn't have DTS when they have no valid case that there would be an improvment over the DD mix.
I agree with everything you've said above but lately I feel DTS has not been enough of an improvement to go out of your way to get it. Early DTS releases were full bitrate and a different, improved sound mix but more often then not recently they're the same mix and at half bitrate which makes the improvement less noticable.
Now you're one who seems to search out to see if there is a difference when there are choices but many folks blindly buy into the DTS is always better way of thinking and buy or not based on nothing but a DTS logo on the spec list. I've read so many posts from people knocking a release because it doesn't have DTS when they have no valid case that there would be an improvment over the DD mix.
Originally posted by jiggawhat
Go rent Band of Brothers and you guys will have your answer.
Go rent Band of Brothers and you guys will have your answer.
02-11-04 | 05:19 PM
#30
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Indy Jones Fan
I couldn't agree more. People insist they here a difference between DD and DTS...well yeah because when they switch between soundtracks the DTS is 3-4db higher than the DD. I would challenge anyone to do a blind audio test between the two with volumes corrected and tell me which is which.
I couldn't agree more. People insist they here a difference between DD and DTS...well yeah because when they switch between soundtracks the DTS is 3-4db higher than the DD. I would challenge anyone to do a blind audio test between the two with volumes corrected and tell me which is which.
I don't think the difference is great though. But, if given the choice on a disc, I choose DTS. If I already on DD and there is a DTS available, I don't believe the difference is great enough for me to trade my DD for the DTS.
