Dolby Digital 5.1 Vs. DTS 5.1

[malisamson]

What is the best sound between these two and why?
What's the difference at all?
I have expirienced DTS a little more powerfull...but what d u tink?

[dvdx_925]

DTS better...i'm not an expert on it, but all i noe is because the compression is less for DTS....

[waheed]

DTS is marginally better than DD, I would think being more louder. However, the difference is not too great.

DTS uses more memory (being at a higher bitrate) than DD and if you plan to include it as your main audio on a dvd movie (im assuming), ensure your dvd player can play it, as a dvd without DD (or LPCM) audio as the first track does not meet dvd specifications.

[guns1inger]

The DTS mix is generally louder and punchier in the bass, which can make most home systems sound a little better than DD5.1. Due to the lower compression, subtle detail in the softer and higher end can also be preserved better in DTS. The trade off, especially when working with single-layer disks, is the extra size. DTS is around 60% larger than AC3, but still a lot smaller than LPCM.

That said, if you are simply encoding off the same source, and not changing the mix for the different formats, there is little to be gained. Technically, DTS should not be the only audio track on a disk, and also should not be the first track on the disk. There is also no requirement for DTS to be downmixed to stereo, as there is for AC3 audio.

[malisamson]

is there any way to convert dd 2.0 or stereo into DTS?

[waheed]

I wouldn't really bother converting DD 2.0 to DTS, because you will not gain any improvement in audio quality. Its only beneficial if the track is DTS to start off with and you are retaining it as part of a DVD.

[malisamson]

I would guess that you will get a little improvement conserning the subwoofer or am i totally wrong?

[guns1inger]

If you have a dolby prologic II capable reciever you will get much better rear seperation and effects, and good lfe, and no extra work on your part. You wont really get anything better by converting AC3 2.0 to DTS. In fact, you will get less of the correct effects byy going down this path as you will force the rears to duplicate the fronts. Multi-channel mixing just isn't as simple as that.

[malisamson]

but is prologic and linear really the best then?

[MACCA350]

Read this artical http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp

some quotes

When comparing DTS with 448kbps Dolby Digital (and even, to a lesser degree, 384kbps Dolby Digital) any difference noticeable can more likely be attributed to differences in mastering or production than coding schemes. Under identical mastering conditions the two systems should be nearly indistinguishable from one another.

Any attempt to compare the domestic versions of Dolby Digital and DTS with one another is extremely difficult due to one major technical difference. The domestic version of Dolby Digital incorporates a feature, called 'dialog normalization', designed to maintain a consistent centre-channel volume from all Dolby Digital sources. The dialog normalization system is designed to ensure that the average centre-channel volume is always between -25 and -31dBFS (decibels below digital full-scale), regardless of source. As a result, if dialogue is recorded at a higher volume, the Dolby Digital decoder automatically attenuates the volume of all channels to the level at which the centre-channel outputs dialogue at the set 'dialnorm' level (usually -31dBFS for Dolby Digital on DVD). Most movies' centre-channels are recorded at -27dBFS, which results in an overall lowering of 4dB in all channels. Movies can be recorded at anything from -23dBFS (e.g. 'Wild Things') to -31dBFS (e.g. 'Air Force One', non-SuperBit and 'Twister: SE'), resulting in nominal overall volume attenuation of up to 8dB ('Wild Things') or more. All channels maintain their correct relative balance, so no detrimental sonic effects can be attributed to the dialnorm process. But, because the result can be up to an 8dB reduction in volume, there is no easy way to compare DTS and Dolby Digital versions of a film's soundtrack. The overall volume of the DTS version may be 8dB or more higher than the Dolby Digital soundtrack, making direct comparisons nearly impossible. As dialnorm is constantly variable in 1dB increments, the exact difference in overall volume between Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks often varies from film to film.

Any argument for or against a particular system must be based on competing coding schemas. DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'.

cheers