I can understand how a disc can't have both, but does DTS take up so much more room to cost supplements (i.e., Saving Private Ryan and 12 Monkeys).

...ahh... any DVD featuring a DTS soundtrack will ALWAYS also carry a DD soundtrack (DD being part of the DVD specs, as DTS isn't)... in fact, there are far more DVDs featuring a reduced-to-half-bit DTS 5.1 track in addition to a full-bore DD 5.1 track than there are DVDs that feature a full-bit DTS track...

. . . . . .

is a half-bit DTS 5.1 track better than a DD 5.1 track?

Many discs do have both DTS and Dolby tracks, though the earliest DTS discs, which were farmed out to DTS for production, usually lack. In fact, for a region 1 dvd to be up to spec, at least a Dolby (or PCM) track is required.

DTS basically comes in two flavors, full bitrate (1 536 kbps) or half bitrate (768 kbps). Most common for dvds being half bitrate. For Dolby 5.1 tracks 448 kbps dominates, while 192 kbps is the predominant rate for stereo (and 2.0 mono) tracks. (PCM tracks, by the way, take up approximately as much space as DTS tracks.)

As stated earlier, a region 1 dvd must have either a Dolby or PCM audio track, as those are the minimum specifications for region 1 players. So, unless a producer willingly risks possibly upsetting consumers who won't be able to use their discs, they'll follow specifications. At minimum this means placing a low bitrate Dolby track on the disc. While almost any bitrate is possible assume the minimum Dolby track to be 192 kbps. Combined with a half bitrate DTS track, that becomes 960 kpbs for audio, 512 kbps more than your run-of-the-mill 448 kbps Dolby track. For a two hour movie, this is a loss of 5-10% the disc space (depending on number of layers) compared to a single 448 kbps Dolby track. Should the average video bitrate be the same, at minimum that could be 6 minutes of video supplements which is lost. (With only the DTS track, just under 4 minutes)

If the supplement is not presented at the maximum bitrate (often happens) the number of minutes increases. So the common half bitrate DTS does take up enough room to lose supplements, though most likely not an hour and a half documentary . . .

Q: is a half-bit DTS 5.1 track better than a DD 5.1 track?

A: ...a lot of people seem to think so...

. . . . . .

And I would agree 99.9% of the time.

...no they don't!!!

...make that any DVD, regardless of where it's produced...
(Note: For European DVDs there was also the option of putting on an MPEG soundtrack (pushed by Philips of the Netherlands), the excuse being that it was 'better' than the DD option. I only know of a very few German DVDs and a limited number of early French DVDs that chose this option, instead of DD: afaik no MPEG soundtracks were produced in the UK nor in other European countries. Anyway, unlike DTS, MPEG soundtracks are compatible with DD ones.)

. . . . . .

they don't lack? you'll note there is no description of what is lacking.

MPEG was the necessary alternative to inclusion of a PCM track, Dolby not being specification. Europeans, however, have notoriously universal equipment, so Dolby could be included without worry.

Q: is a half-bit DTS 5.1 track better than a DD 5.1 track?

A: No. People who say DTS is better are usually taken in by that nice attractive red lettering logo and the fact that DTS is usually at a slightly higher volume.

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.

"MPEG was the necessary alternative to inclusion of a PCM track, Dolby not being specification."

...not true: DD is (part of) the specification, for any DVD made anywhere in the world... the inclusion (or not) of a PCM track has nowt to do with it (*)...

...in fact, the DVD specs say: DD and/or PCM and/or MPEG... and then, in addition(!), there may be a DTS track (e.g. the Canadian movie The Red Violin), or a CHACE SURROUND track (e.g. John Ford's The Hurricane), or, for instance, a (French) ARKAMYS track...

(*) e.g. the (US/R1) DVD of Turandot in the Forbidden City of Beijing includes the live performance of the opera in DD 5.1, as well as a second version of the opera, in PCM stereo.

. . . . . .

Huh? Chace doesn't have their own codec used on DVDs. Their work is outputted as DD, DTS, or PCM, as appropriate.

DJ

...so they don't, and nor does Arkamys... essentially, what Chace have been doing - for many years - is take an 'old' movie and change the mono sound to 'Surround' sound - I owned a number of LDs of those silly, Technicolored Betty Grable musicals of the 1940s, which were all treated this way... that said, I very much doubt that they would output such a 'redo' as a DTS track, or even a PCM track...

. . . . . .

"In December 1997 the lack of MPEG-2 encoders (and decoders) was a big enough problem that the spec was revised to allow Dolby Digital audio tracks to be used on 625/50 discs without MPEG audio tracks."

As per the orignal DVD specifications, MPEG was the only alternate audio choice, if a PCM track was not to be included. What is so unclear about that, sir?

could not agree more with you. There are a few members on this forum that keep going after the DTS track yet I am not sure they understand that at times the imported versions are way worse than the DD "regular" versions that are offered here.
Louder does not equate better sound quality!!!

You are implying that the only difference between DTS and DD is volume level. Common sense tells me there's got to be more to it than that, otherwise all you need to do is turn up your volume to get a DTS soundtrack on a DD DVD.

On my Interview with the Vampire dvd, the DTS track takes 1,327mb, and the DD5.1 track takes 392mb.

I don't have a reference setup by any means, but I can't really tell the difference between the two.

although I can totally tell the difference between The DTS and Dolby Surround tracks on Saving Private Ryan... truly a joy to listen to.

Actually there were a few. Most remembered was the 1st UK 'The Usual Suspects' which was MPEG only and 4:3. Of course nobody actually bought this disc

So why did you say that a "Chace Surround" track could be put on a DVD "in addition" to DD/PCM/MPG? It's not "in addition" at all.

Quote:

that said, I very much doubt that they would output such a 'redo' as a DTS track, or even a PCM track...

Chace have done over 1,000 soundtrack remasters, including many high-profile releases from major studios, many of which have been included on DVDs as DTS tracks.

DJ

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the differences between DD and DTS but when comparing half bitrate DTS to full bitrate DD it's been my experience that volume is pretty much the only difference. Try it yourself sometime. With your eyes closed, have a friend switch between tracks on a disk that has both and have him adjust the volume each time. If you can pick DTS everytime on every disk then you have better ears than me. The quality of sound depends much more on the engineer who mixed it rather than what format it is in.

Maybe member Robert George could weigh in on this subject?

I somewhat agree with you on this. On some discs, it is very hard to tell the difference between the two tracks. It is dependant upon the enginner who mixes the audio at the time of mastering on whether one sounds better than the other. To me, listening to a disc on my system, 90% of the time, the DTS track sounds somewhat more dynamic than the DD track. Saving Private Ryan is a good example, as is LOTR:FOTR EE or LOTR:TTT EE or Alien DC (Quadrilogy). As I said, it is how the track is mastered at the time of mastering on whether a DTS track sounds better. But then, sound is completely subjective, so what sounds good to one, another might not find it very different. For me, if there is a DTS track available, that's what my movie will be played in.

actually I agree with you. This is precisely what I was implying-COMMON SENSE ON A LOT OF ASIAN TITLES WITH A DTS MIX IS THE CASE!! (mostly HK).

A I am a professional musician (as my handle could tell you) and we have done thousands of "filters" where you could split the sound into higher volume "moduls". That's what we call them when we port tapes to CD's from symphony concerts.
DTS mixing is totaly different technology however I believe that there is a little bit of reference you could use in my description above. Many import titles only "filter" the sound, your plyer reads a DTS track with slightly higher volume, but the quality of sound is not there.

On a side note "dynamic sound" is really a loose term- what is that precisely suppose to mean? I would argue that if you ask 10 people on this board what active sound mean you would get some VERY interesting answers.

Anyhow....just my .02 cents on the issue.

In my post, I meant 'dynamic sound' as being less congested sounding while I am watching the movie. Gun shots that are faint and should be 'distant sounding' do sound that way the majority of the time while I am listening to a DTS track, as opposed to a lighter sounding gun shot in the same DD track, but does not sound as if it has distance.

Just my $0.02 though

DTS not necesarly louder...

some titles that have DTS (can't remember which one right now) track inprove the small sound surround rather than make the bass lower.... so, overall, the sound balance improved slightly. where the DD track sound too aggresive (due to lots of low LFE & not enough surround). sounds of bullet passing through, background sound usually benefit most with DTS

just my own personal experience so far

& yes, sometimes the two don't sound muh different at all (i like to call it as poor DTS remix job)

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.