Difference Between AC3 5.1 and DTS 5.1?

[Squibbles1092]

I'm trying to backup a movie with AC3 5.1 and DTS 5.1. What's the difference? Should I keep both, or is it ok to just keep one?

Thanks.

[gshelley61]

AC3 (Dolby Digital) 5.1 and DTS 5.1 are both compressed multi-channel digital audio tracks that require a decoder in your DVD player or your A/V receiver to work. AC3 is used almost universally on all commercial DVD's and even many older home theater receivers have a Dolby Digital 5.1 decoder. DTS is considered a higher quality and better sounding format than Dolby Digital (and creates larger file sizes as a result). Not everyone has a DTS decoder. If you want to save just one of the audio files to leave more space for higher quality video backup, save the AC3 track. You could also save a version of each (one disc with AC3, one with DTS). If you have room (don't have to compress the video much to fit), go ahead and save both tracks on one DVD.

[Squibbles1092]

If I save both, compression on DVDShrink goes down to 80%. If I only keep the AC3, compression goes up to 90%. Is it worth it to save both tracks?

[pijetro]

IMHO, i would get rid of the DTS if i had to make the decision for myself..
I'm not an audiophile, and unless it's a Peter Gabriel concert, the .AC3 should give you good enough results..

Good luck!!

[guns1inger]

It depends on the film, the mix, and your audio gear. If you don't have a DTS decoder, drop it. If there is little difference between the DD and DTS mix when played through a good DTS system, drop it. There are some films where the DTS sound is noticably better Seven and LOTR films come to mind, as well as the Pixar films. Because of the lower compression, DTS is better at finessing the smaller sounds, and often produces much more realistic seperation effects.

(Of course, this is to a degree subjective. I do believe that DTS is suprier to DD is most cases, and certainly never worse. If I have a disc with both, I will always choose the DTS sound track to listen to)

[Squibbles1092]

I decided to just keep the AC3 5.1 because my surround sound doesn't support DTS. Anyways, is it also worth it to save the 2 channel sound? Is there really a point to saving AC3 5.1 and 2 Channel?

Thanks.

[Duchess]

is it also worth it to save the 2 channel sound?

2 channel sound is usually directors comments or something similar, so that is up to you whether you want to keep it.

[lordsmurf]

DTS never seems to keep the same "volume" when played back as compared to the AC3. I've seen this on 2-3 receivers.

[Hardcoreruss]

If you ask me dts tracks are of a far higher quality that dd 5.1 (ac3). This seems reciprocated in outlets as the dts version nearly always costs more. If you have a good rig listen to Saving Private Ryan 5.1 and then listen to the dts one. Dts absolutely blows 5.1 away.

[garryheather]

I think you will find it's because most people find DTS sounds "punchier".

Dolby Digital 5.1 generally sounds closer to the original source - they were criticised at the time for being biased, but the following report has been confirmed by external sources and makes an interesting read:

http://www.dolby.com/tech/mp.in.0103.DigitalVsDTS.pdf

I find it depends on the movie - anything that's really noisy with lots of explosions and so on often sounds very good with DTS, but then I've got no complaints with 5.1 and rarely bother using a DTS soundtrack as it's not the default and both work for me.

Lazy buggers rule, Zzzz...

[jg0001]

The 'volume' of a track may have more to do with dynamic range than anything... Let me explain... regular TV has very little dynamic range, that way you can easily hear the dialogue WITHOUT having to go deaf when things explode. DVD's are closer to a true movie experience in that the difference between the volume of a conversation and an explosion is closer to reality... so, in order to hear the dialogue at normal levels, the explosions should shake your innards. DTS has an excellent dynamic range and usually will require a little more boost ... this way you can hear everything from the chirping of crickets to the blast of explosions all as close to (or better than ) reality. If this bothers you, many DVD players have the ability to shrink the dynamic range so you can both hear dialogue and explosions without annoying your neighbors.

[bdf24]

All the digital recievers that I've seen also have the ability to compress the dynamic range as well. Usually three settings. off, normal, and max. Max usually being the original source meant for the theaters. Normal or midrange is supposidly compressed a bit more to suite home theater use.

I personally do not have a DTS system. I've got a Yamaha RX-V495 Natural Sound AV Reciever. I bought it quite a few years ago. Just got new surround sound speakers the other day. Was trying to talk my wife into letting upgrade my reciever to a DTS system but no go . Oh well DD 5.1 is still pretty good sounding to me. I love to crank it (but only when the wife is not home, she hates it loud).

So I guess this big speal is telling you that I just keep the 5.1 track. But I will actually keep the DTS on a movie sometimes if there's enough room where I don't have to compress the movie. Who know's I may get a new reciever some day. Or atleast a standalone DTS decoder which my reciever does have hookups for.

[Shudder]

Volume is an issue with DTS vs DD only if you're already at your receiver's max.. which you probably aren't.

When watching DVDs I'll always pick DTS over DD, but if I'm backing up I'll always eliminate DTS. Why? At most DTS is a few perceivable % better than DD, if you can even tell. BUT, the vast majority of people can EASILY see a 10% difference in video quality, so I'd prefer to have the virutually indistinguishable audio and better video.

[spiderman2k1]

DTS is CBR and DD is VBR. When I listen to the extend version of The nLord of the Ring DTS sound little better but not alot better. If i'm making a back up copy I'll drop DTS some time's to give more room for the video. When backing up a DVD-9 to DVD-R.

When DTS first came out one fo my friend was a bif fan of it. And he said the really good DVD with DTS are the one's that the DTS company encoded. Then DTS start selling software or work station or what every but they had the movie companies doing there own DTS sound track's.

If you look at the first DVD's when the came out some companies had very good video. And other had crap for video. Some people new what they are doing. This was about five years ago and the companies nowknow how to do a good DTS sound track. But i bet if DTS or if DD did a sound track in most case's it will alway's sound better then the movie studio's

[graysky]

I know this isn't the the forum since this is dvd to dvdr, but the thread is started here and I think my question is part of this discussion so here goes: if one is planning on compressing a DVD to XviD, given the choice between an audio track that is ac3 and an audio track that is dts... which of the two should be converted to ogg or mp3 and muxed with the video?

Thanks!

[bugster]

which of the two should be converted to ogg or mp3 and muxed with the video?

Thanks!

Neither, keep the roiginal DD 5.1 (Ac3) soundtrack.

[graysky]

Neither? Those are the only two options:

DVD2AVI DTS T02 DELAY -49ms.dts
DVD2AVI AC3 T03 3_2ch 384Kbps DELAY -49ms.ac3
DVD2AVI AC3 T01 3_2ch 448Kbps DELAY -49ms.ac3

The DTS file is english, the 384kbps ac3 is french, and the 448kbps ac3 is english. Are you suggesting to keep the 448 kbps ac3 file? If so, why was your suggestion to do neither? I'm confused

[bugster]

Neither? Those are the only two options:

DVD2AVI DTS T02 DELAY -49ms.dts
DVD2AVI AC3 T03 3_2ch 384Kbps DELAY -49ms.ac3
DVD2AVI AC3 T01 3_2ch 448Kbps DELAY -49ms.ac3

The DTS file is english, the 384kbps ac3 is french, and the 448kbps ac3 is english. Are you suggesting to keep the 448 kbps ac3 file? If so, why was your suggestion to do neither? I'm confused

What I was saying was, do not convert ANY audio track to ogg or mp3. Use whichever AC3 track suits your purposes, prefereably one that is 5.1 rather than 2.0. This can then be muxed with the video without conversion. This solution gives the best quality sound possible with the minor drawback of a slightly larger final filesize than using ogg or mp3. Of course if minimal filesize is high on your priority list when encoding to divx, ignore what I have just said.

[graysky]

I see... you're saying simply mux up the XviD with the original AC3.

1. Does VDM support AC3 audio sources?
2. Does mplayer for LINUX support AC3 without a recompile?

(Not at home at the moment and cannot check myself.)

Thanks!

[graysky]

One other question: is there a need to some how adjust the audio for the delay reported in the filename generated by dvd2avi? In this case, it's reporting a -49 ms delay.

[bugster]

There are guides on doom9 for creating divx/xvid with Ac3 audio. As for Linux, sorry, have no idea but would expect it uses installed codecs.

[Shudder]

I always keep DD over DTS even though I have a DTS receiver. I'm very much less likely to notice the sound difference, but I'm almost always going to notice the video difference if I kept DTS over DD.

Besides, if I ever decide to go out of town and only take my PS2 for a DVD player DTS wouldn't work on the TV speakers, so it's always better for portability to just have DD/AC3

[Thomas Anderson]

I always use the AC3 instead of DTS for the video compression reasons, but if I were doing a concert disc or something I'd probably choose DTS then, as even if the video is lower quality as a result, with things like concerts it's mainly about the music.