Which do you prefer - Dolby Digital or DTS?

[yoda313]

Uncompressed stereo is better than any dd or dts on many blu-ray films, even if it only comes out two/four speakers.

Personally I'd only agree on older movies say pre 1970 or something like that. I would say classics like Gone With The Wind or Ben Hur or Casablanca that didn't have surround tracks don't get "perfect" 5.1 mixes since the movie wasn't produced with that technology in mind.

But I would argue that any surround sound be it dd or dts is a MUST for modern day blockbusters. I don't think I could do Back To the Future or Indiana Jones without surround sound. Now yes I know 5.1 wasn't around then either for those two but dolby lsurround was in its infancy so it was being bred for that inevitability.

You can't tell me that a stereo only track version of Lord of the Rings would be superior to a DTS-MA track with a straight face can you?

[nwo]

Uncompressed stereo is better than any dd or dts on many blu-ray films, even if it only comes out two/four speakers.

Personally I'd only agree on older movies say pre 1970 or something like that. I would say classics like Gone With The Wind or Ben Hur or Casablanca that didn't have surround tracks don't get "perfect" 5.1 mixes since the movie wasn't produced with that technology in mind.

But I would argue that any surround sound be it dd or dts is a MUST for modern day blockbusters. I don't think I could do Back To the Future or Indiana Jones without surround sound. Now yes I know 5.1 wasn't around then either for those two but dolby lsurround was in its infancy so it was being bred for that inevitability.

You can't tell me that a stereo only track version of Lord of the Rings would be superior to a DTS-MA track with a straight face can you?

The fact that the sound is much louder and crisper on the PCM track than a DTS or Dolby Digital, yes i would.

Give me a PCM stereo/5.1 any time over a out of date audio compression.

[yoda313]

PCM stereo/5.1

that's different. I was thinking you were saying STEREO only. yes I know about uncompressed surround now. That I would not argue. But not plain stereo - unless it was a concert video but they'd use pcm anyway.

[mkvonly]

Lol, what a question. All are better then AC3, mp3,ogg,aac.
A 5.1 AAC is clearer then AC3 5.1 an smaller in size, I've experienced it again and again.
And the king is of course DTS with no doubt, and I mean even DTS 768 (home made with surcode) is better then the original AC3 640..

[hogger129]

I realize this is an old thread, but I wanted to add my two cents. I think most people perceive DTS as being better simply because it is at a higher volume. I would choose Dolby Digital if I were concerned about space. It's way more efficient and really doesn't sound that bad at a higher bit rate (I think it's between 384 and 448 on DVD).

DTS is better if you want to talk about the quality of the audio. It's at a higher bit rate (768 max for DVD? Most of mine are 755). So it should sound clearer and the ones on my DVDs are usually 24-bit, 48khz, so they should have more dynamic range and detail.

However, I chose "Stereo is king." Even movie theaters I thought used stereo but just had really good imaging.

[El Heggunte]

I realize this is an old thread, but I wanted to add my two cents. I think most people perceive DTS as being better simply because it is at a higher volume. I would choose Dolby Digital if I were concerned about space. It's way more efficient and really doesn't sound that bad at a higher bit rate (I think it's between 384 and 448 on DVD).

DTS is better if you want to talk about the quality of the audio. It's at a higher bit rate (768 max for DVD? Most of mine are 755). So it should sound clearer and the ones on my DVDs are usually 24-bit, 48khz, so they should have more dynamic range and detail.

However, I chose "Stereo is king." Even movie theaters I thought used stereo but just had really good imaging.

ERROR: Font size is too small to be read.

[hogger129]

I realize this is an old thread, but I wanted to add my two cents. I think most people perceive DTS as being better simply because it is at a higher volume. I would choose Dolby Digital if I were concerned about space. It's way more efficient and really doesn't sound that bad at a higher bit rate (I think it's between 384 and 448 on DVD).

DTS is better if you want to talk about the quality of the audio. It's at a higher bit rate (768 max for DVD? Most of mine are 755). So it should sound clearer and the ones on my DVDs are usually 24-bit, 48khz, so they should have more dynamic range and detail.

However, I chose "Stereo is king." Even movie theaters I thought used stereo but just had really good imaging.

ERROR: Font size is too small to be read.

Fixed.

I should also add to my previous statement that mastering is FAR more important than which codec is used.

[yoda313]

that mastering is FAR more important than which codec is used.

I'd say they would have more equal importance than anything.

Just think a perfectly produced vcd can't hold its own against a perfectly mastered bluray now can it?

Of course that is a bit of an extreme example but the principle is there. You have a much larger tapestry to work with in the bluray than you do with the vcd. You still need to make it look good for what you are working with naturally. But having a larger canvas to work with makes a huge difference in the final outcome.

[Brad]

AC3 is more efficient. DD+448 is equivalent to DTS1500, and DD384 stacks up closely to DTS448. Only one of those is a DVD standard, as unfortunately published comparisons are hard to come by for free.

If the quality performance requirement for broadcasters is that none of the test sequences resulted in a quality lower than “Excellent” (i.e. 80 points on MUSHRA scale), then relatively high bitrates are required. For example, consider Dolby Digital (DD) or DTS which have been in the market for more than 10 years: Dolby Digital requires 448 kbit/s and DTS still requires around 1.5 Mbit/s for "Excellent" quality. The newer codecs, such as Dolby Digital Plus or Windows Media provide "Excellent" quality only if operating at 448 kbit/s or above.

However, the DVD specs allow DTS to have additional bit depth, sampling, and channels. The only way in which AC3 is more versatile on DVD is that DTS 1-channel isn't allowed.

[El Heggunte]

I think the original question is not very-pertinent anymore. First, DTS audio for Blu-Ray is not limited between only two bitrates, and now there is a freeware DTS encoder (dcaenc), which BTW is far more *comprehensive*, feature-wise, than the old Surcode compressor. Therefore, today anyone can do ABX tests between AC3 and DTS's "Coherent Acoustics" by using stereo sources, which are readily available and inexpensive.

The only apparent problem is, now "NOBODY" cares about running new comparative tests between DTS and AC3.

[Brad]

Probably because the only people who would accept the results of such a test already know what the result is going to be, while "golden-eared" idiots continue to spout that DTS is superior because of volume levels, mixing, numbers, and marketing.

[aedipuss]

hehe - i don't think either is "better". dts tends to be mixed more towards the "sound effects" which makes vocals hard to hear except at higher volume levels which might make some people think it's better.

[Cornucopia]

First, I can't believe this stupid thread got grave-robbed!

Second, the way the poll reads, it's like "what's better? A or B or 3 ? What the HELL does the comparison of bitrates/efficiency/compression vs uncompressed/lossless have to do with some other comparison of spaciality with surround vs stereo?

Third, after I've moved this summer, I think it's time I put this goofiness to rest by posting another A/B/X showdown..

Scott

[El Heggunte]

The only apparent problem is, now "NOBODY" cares about running new comparative tests between DTS and AC3.

Probably because the only people who would accept the results of such a test already know what the result is going to be, while "golden-eared" idiots continue to spout that DTS is superior because of volume levels, mixing, numbers, and marketing.

Maybe you're right, but IMNSHO it's not enough to confirm that "DTS sucks" ( or rather, that "AC3 sucks, but DTS sucks more" ), it's more important to determine HOW MUCH DTS sucks when compared to AC3 And to be honest, I mistrust all those ancient comparisons "DTS vs. AC3" --- as a well-known Hydrogenaudian already pointed out, ABXing with 5.1 sources is much more difficult (and less conclusive) than ABXing with mono or stereo sources So it would be nice for example, to confirm (or infirm, who knows) that DTS can be perceptually-transparent @ 255kps per channel @ 48kHz (which roughly translates as 1280kbps for 5.1 @ 48kHz).

...... after I've moved this summer, I think it's time I put this goofiness to rest by posting another A/B/X showdown..

Scott

We're still waiting for that, Scott

( and in a brand-new topic, of course )

[hogger129]

Dolby Digital for me.

DTS is horribly inefficient and runs into a wide range of compatibility problems. I would never use it unless you have equipment that can support it properly.

[jman98]

hogger129 - It's bad enough that you grave robbed it back in June, but you're STILL adding to it. Unbelievable. Let it go, man, let it go.

[nimd4]

Dolby Digital or DTS

Had to search: Dolby Digital vs DTS and actually the first result (for me) doesn't look 2 bad:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats

Tnx. ;-$

[redwudz]

Please don't dig up old threads just to post in them. This is a really old poll, 2006. Make a new poll if you want newer results.

[El Heggunte]

Dolby Digital or DTS

Had to search: Dolby Digital vs DTS and actually the first result (for me) doesn't look 2 bad:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats

Well, it IS too bad Besides containing some serious MIS-information, it's pretty outdated as well

Third, after I've moved this summer, I think it's time I put this goofiness to rest by posting another A/B/X showdown..

@Scott: it would be nice to state that you changed your mind since that day.