VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)

Poll: Which do you prefer - Dolby Digital or DTS?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 49 of 49
Thread
  1. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by 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?
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  2. AGAINST IDLE SIT nwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Stadium Of Light
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    Originally Posted by 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.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by nwo
    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.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member mkvonly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Budapest, Macao, Sidney, Rio
    Search Comp PM
    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..
    Quote Quote  
  5. 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.
    Last edited by hogger129; 2nd Jun 2013 at 11:39.
    Quote Quote  
  6. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by El Heggunte View Post
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hogger129
    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.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Mountains of gear vaporeon800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Search PM
    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.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	MUSHRA-scores.PNG
Views:	1159
Size:	102.4 KB
ID:	18166

    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.
    Last edited by vaporeon800; 2nd Jun 2013 at 16:07.
    Quote Quote  
  10. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Mountains of gear vaporeon800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Search PM
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  12. aBigMeanie aedipuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    666th portal
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    --
    "a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    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
    Quote Quote  
  14. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by vaporeon800 View Post
    Originally Posted by El Heggunte View Post
    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).

    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    ...... 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 )
    Quote Quote  
  15. 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.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    Dolby Digital or DTS
    Had to search: Dolby Digital vs DTS and actually the first result (for me) doesn't look 2 bad:
    Code:
    http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats
    Tnx. ;-$
    Z68A-G43 (G3) - i7-3770 - Vengeance 2x4GB 2133MHz - nVidia GTX 650 Gainward
    Quote Quote  
  18. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    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.
    Quote Quote  
  19. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by nimd4 View Post
    Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    Dolby Digital or DTS
    Had to search: Dolby Digital vs DTS and actually the first result (for me) doesn't look 2 bad:
    Code:
    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

    Originally Posted by Cornucopia
    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.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads