Happy Birthday to the format that some thought would fail

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It was around this time ten years ago a new theatrical audio format was born. Its inauguration was heralded by the feet of giant CG created Dinosaurs that roamed a place called Jurassic Park. It was thought by many in the industry(and on this very board) that this format would die a slow and painful death as the CDS format did earlier, but it did not happen. After 10 years I thought it would be cool to note the high points of this formats history.

1) Dts was the first high bit format for theatrical audio presentation(964kbps vs Dolby's 320kbps)

2) The first high bit format for DVD's and Laserdisc(1.5mbps or 754kbps vs Dolby's 448kbps or 384kbps))

3) The first multichannel audio system designed for cars(Gary Rebers black 1999 Chevy Malibu)

4) The first high bit multichannel radio broadcast(2002 AES meeting in Sweden radio broadcast of The History of Sound in Dts 24/96)

5) The first to bring 6.1 discrete to DVD,

6) And lastly the first to introduce one of the most flexible, scaleable codecs ever created to the audio community and consumers alike.

I personally think that the management and staff of Dts deserves the highest praise for enduring and flourishing in an environment that is hostile to competition, enduring major onslaughts from its competitors, overcoming lack of support from some of the major studios, and hopes of its demise from two majors in the DVD community(Warner Bros Studio and Dolby who both conspired to undermine Dts)

Happy B-day Dts, have many more!!!

[Woochifer]

And I would add that DTS has helped introduce me to the world of higher res surround music, even though I've yet to buy a DVD-A or SACD player. Before multichannel DVD-A or SACD discs were widely released, DTS stepped up to the plate and put out several 5.1 music discs. Even now, the backup DTS tracks that are included with several DVD-A discs are a nice step up from the DD tracks, and give a hint of what to expect when I finally do make the jump to the higher res formats. (Heck, the audio quality is already a step up over CD audio with the discs that I've bought)

In addition, DTS has also allowed me to stand pat and enjoy the music in the meantime while waiting for the right universal player to come along at the right price point. In other words, they've allowed me to be happy as a cheap bastard ... thank you DTS!

P.S. Has it been 10 years already?! I remember at first thinking, another digital theatrical format? BFD! But, then when Jurassic Park came out and so many theatres converted to digital sound at the same time, I thought it was revolutionary, not because of the format itself but because it made digital quality theatrical sound accessible to so many people. Before that, almost everyone that didn't live near a showcase theatre that got 70mm magstriped prints had to endure optical analog soundtracks or wait while Dolby Digital worked its way into theatres at a glacial pace.

[Geoffcin]

I was there! At least that's how I felt when I saw Jurassic Park the first time. Not since they had installed the huge horn loaded woofers for "Earthquake" had I felt bass like that at a cinema. Even then, "Earthquake" was just a low frequency warble, the DTS Jurassic Park experience was like 30 ton dinos stomping around in the movie theater! The range of dB expressed was, and I think still is, much more than Dolby encoded material. While the movie dialog wasn't loud to me, I can remember the roar of the T-Rex seeming to push you back in your seat.

What a great way to kick off a new format!

[nick4433]

I have become a huge fan of the DTS 96/24 format and to my ears it sounds as dynamic as SACD or DVD-A and the added bonus is the automatic Bass Management that comes with the prepro or receiver without all the BM headaches.

[magictooth]

Sir TT,

Are there different kinds of DTS? The reason I'm asking is quite often I listen to DTS vs. DD and the two formats sound exactly the same. Other times, the DTS is noticeably different. Are some DTS tracks recorded in 16 bit and others in a higher bit rate? How could I find this information out without having to listen to the disc after I buy and open the package?

Dave

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir TT,

Are there different kinds of DTS? The reason I'm asking is quite often I listen to DTS vs. DD and the two formats sound exactly the same. Other times, the DTS is noticeably different. Are some DTS tracks recorded in 16 bit and others in a higher bit rate? How could I find this information out without having to listen to the disc after I buy and open the package?

Dave

Dave,
There is only one Dts, but it comes in several flavors. Dts 5.1, Dts ES matrix, and Dts 6.1 Discrete. Dts usually has a bitrate of either 754kbps or(the not so common used)1509kbps.

When a soundtrack is originally recorded(before encoding) in 16 bits PCM or analog, there are likely to be no significant sonic differences between each format as both can easily pass a 18bit signal. As the bit depth gets larger(20bits and above), the differences between Dts and Dolby began to appear. Older soundtracks that are encoded in both Dts and Dolby can sometimes not yield sonic difference, or the refinements that Dts can usually reveal are often lost to lack of a system ability to deliver fine details, or differences are swamped by room acoustics.

I can tell you right now, no disc will include the bit depth of sampling rate of the soundtrack. They are very inconsistant about labeling as it is.

[John Beresford]

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! I agree!!

Sir Terrence, your cause for DTS celebration is WELL justified, by all and any means....DTS is the best thing to happen to home theater/audio since we dumped those VHS tapes for shiny 5" discs...

When a choice is given, I will ALWAYS purchase the DTS version of a DVD; for modern-day blockbusters, this is a benefit---for earlier films so-called "remastered" in DTS, its not always the case. To me, DTS sounds AT LEAST more than a few decibels louder than a standard Dolby Digital track, ALWAYS. "Modern-day" DTS discs in my collection include Daredevil, Gladiator, U571, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Haunting....older, remastered films in DTS include "Jaws" and "Scarface," both of which dont sound all that hot.

But I digress....long live DTS, and whomever says there isn't a worthy difference between a given DTS track and one from the likes of Dolby Labs, I say clean out those earlobes...DTS sounds louder, introduces a wider soundstage, and offers head-snapping surround effects that really draw a listener into the film. Just listen to the bass rip your listening room apart as the doors slam closed angrily in The Haunting as the ghosts chase these nitwits around the house (this DVD's DTS ES soundtrack is mind-numbing); or really believe you are right there in the Roman arena with Russell Crowe and those tigers about to eat him for lunch in Gladiator, where the crowd roars around you and the sounds of the chariots breaking up and hitting the wall will rock your sub (this is also a DTS ES soundtrack)....DTS sounds awesome, and I wouldn't ever buy the DD DVD version of a film, given the choice. There IS a difference.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY DTS!

[magictooth]

Hi!

So my guess is that some of the newer DVDs like Gladiator, Jurassic Park, and LoTR have a higher bit rate. And, conversely, some of the old movies that got DTS encoding such as Predator, Stargate, and Lethal Weapon movies are pretty much the same audio quality except that they have, perhaps, a new lease on life, in that suckers like myself will go out and buy a new disk.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Thanks,

Dave

[John Beresford]

Hi!

So my guess is that some of the newer DVDs like Gladiator, Jurassic Park, and LoTR have a higher bit rate. And, conversely, some of the old movies that got DTS encoding such as Predator, Stargate, and Lethal Weapon movies are pretty much the same audio quality except that they have, perhaps, a new lease on life, in that suckers like myself will go out and buy a new disk.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Thanks,

Dave

Dave,

Could be that these new releases have higher bit rates; in some cases of the older films, I can tell you that many critics even claim that the audio sounds "largely re-recorded" from old stuff; the Anniversary Edition of Scarface that was released in September, for example, sounds and looks terrible, still, and this was supposed to be a remastering of the old DVD/Laserdisc version---it boasts a DTS soundtrack, but all the sound still comes out of the front soundstage, and the gunfire still sounds hollow and low. Dialogue borders on distortion. Bad presentation. "Home Theater Magazine" did a review on this two disc set and proclaimed "...the best that can be said of the video and audio is that its an improvement....the picture has a busy, grainy, dark quality to it and the audio sounds largely re-recorded from the original, sometimes crudely so....."

[kelsci]

Magictooth; you can check out the bit rates of DTS in most cases on a DVD by going to the widescreen review.com website. The DTS bit rate regardless of how good or bad the sound might be is I believe 764kbps on a DVD. They recently had an article on that site that D-VHS is going to have DTS in its original kbps rate which I cannot recall but I think it is 1504 or 1604. What there has not been any talk of is the use of 5.1 96/24 dts for movies at this time even on the D-VHS Tape.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Dave, John, and Kelsci,
I do not know of any studio supporting Dts's higher 1509kbps bitrate. All DVD's that currently carry a Dts soundtrack are encoded at Dts's half rate of 754kbps. The last full bitrate Dts title was the Lethal Weapon Series which were all encoded at 1509Kbps. The differences that you hear between the older movies(Jaws, Close Encounters, Predator etc..) is the use of older technology to create them, and the fact that it began as a analog master, as opposed to most soundtrack today that originate and are mixed digitally. No matter what encoding scheme you choose,whatever you feed into it, that's what comes out. Garbage in, garbage out. The quality of the soundtrack HIGHLY depends on the quality of the printmaster. Dts(or DD) cannot make a poor sounding master sound good. If the master tape is of poor quality, then what comes out of the encoder will sound equally as dirty.

You also must take into consideration the bit depth to which the master was created. Movies like The Haunted, LOTR, Gladiator were are mixed, mastered, and encoded at a 24bit depth. Most others are encoded at between 16 and 20bits.

[John Beresford]

Dave, John, and Kelsci,
I do not know of any studio supporting Dts's higher 1509kbps bitrate. All DVD's that currently carry a Dts soundtrack are encoded at Dts's half rate of 754kbps. The last full bitrate Dts title was the Lethal Weapon Series which were all encoded at 1509Kbps. The differences that you hear between the older movies(Jaws, Close Encounters, Predator etc..) is the use of older technology to create them, and the fact that it began as a analog master, as opposed to most soundtrack today that originate and are mixed digitally. No matter what encoding scheme you choose,whatever you feed into it, that's what comes out. Garbage in, garbage out. The quality of the soundtrack HIGHLY depends on the quality of the printmaster. Dts(or DD) cannot make a poor sounding master sound good. If the master tape is of poor quality, then what comes out of the encoder will sound equally as dirty.

You also must take into consideration the bit depth to which the master was created. Movies like The Haunted, LOTR, Gladiator were are mixed, mastered, and encoded at a 24bit depth. Most others are encoded at between 16 and 20bits.

Agreed, Terrence. And I understand the garbage in/garbage out theory; its just that, then why release old titles with packaging proclaiming "DIGITALLY REMASTERED AUDIO AND VIDEO FOR BETTER-THAN-THE-ORIGINAL QUALITY" as Scarface does? Why even bother doing a DTS mix of an older film when its not really going to make much of a difference anyhow? Why BOTHER offering, say, Jaws in DTS when it sounds almost identical to the standard DD mix of the same presentation? Why do studios even bother? I watch Scarface in DTS, and it sounds like its running in Pro Logic II as a VHS version would....nothing impressive about the soundstage whatsoever. So why bother RELEASING it in DTS?

[kelsci]

Your LORDSHIP; Most interesting of your answer was the bit depth rate. I believe that 1509 kbps is going to be used on D-VHS. What bit depth rate they will use I do not know but since D-VHS is going on current releases, I would imagine that some will be in the 24 bit range. What gets me is why they are not using 96/24 DTS on D-VHS in 5.1 or 6.1 mode. Is it perhaps there is not enough space to accomodate this on the tape?. Or is it a matter of convenience that 1509 kbps encoders are prevalent in the mixing rooms of the studios so why not use what is around( I would imagine that the DTS half-rate encoders give a audio engineer a choice between DTS half-rate and 1509 full rate so they can pull double duty).

[richieb]

Good thread,

Somebody in the UK has devised a list of DTS DVD's that were released anywhere in the world and the bitrate each disc has. Worth a gander.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bwescombe/dts_dvd.htm


It must be noted that there are far many more DTS movies outside of the USA then there are actually on Region 1.

The Core R3
Terminator 3 R3
Armageddon R2 (Japan)

The list goes on. I think US distributors put more extras on the disc and therefore cannot fit a full rate DTS track on the disc.. But I might be wrong.

[kelsci]

Richieb; nice link for the bitrates on various DTS movies in the various regions of the world. The only thing I found missing was that JURASSIC PARK 3 should have indicated DTS 6.1 Matrix surround.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

John,

There is something in your post that I want to correct and to answer your question.

[quote]. To me, DTS sounds AT LEAST more than a few decibels louder than a standard Dolby Digital track, ALWAYS[\quote]

Not exactly John. DD uses a processing routine called dialog normalization to insure that all DD will have the same loudness as the sources change(this was intended for HDTV not DVD's). The more common value used at the encoding state is -27db which equates to about a 3db reduction in overall program level when compared to the master tape(or hard storage drive whichever is used). Dts does not utilize dialog normalization, so its output while seemingly louder that DD actually matches the printmaster to the exact decibel.

[quote]What gets me is why they are not using 96/24 DTS on D-VHS in 5.1 or 6.1 mode. [\quote]

Patience my friend. Its in the spec for D-VHS so its just a matter of time. Personally I think the first 24/96khz movie soundtrack will probably come from Dreamworks as Steven Speilberg owns about a 40-50 percent stake in Dts.


[quote]Is it perhaps there is not enough space to accomodate this on the tape?. [\quote]

No, there is more than enough space. Dts 24/96khz runs at the same data rate as full bitrate 5.1 Dts, 1509kbps.


[quote]Or is it a matter of convenience that 1509 kbps encoders are prevalent in the mixing rooms of the studios so why not use what is around( I would imagine that the DTS half-rate encoders give a audio engineer a choice between DTS half-rate and 1509 full rate so they can pull double duty).[\quote]

Dts can send a 24/96khz update on a disc to update all present encoders sold, so there really is no reason whatsoever that it cannot be used on D-VHS. My personal thoughts are there are not enough products sold with 24/96 decoding chips to justify using it right at this moment. Once enough products are out there with 24/96 decoding, I bet Dts will push to have movies encoded in this format.


[quote]Why BOTHER offering, say, Jaws in DTS when it sounds almost identical to the standard DD mix of the same presentation? [\quote]

Since I stupidly bought both copies, I did a double blind comparison with two other individuals, two identical Sony DVD players, and a MTX pro multiplexing machine for instant switching. I found that I was able(and my two other partners also) to distinguish between each formats soundtrack 100% of the time. The Dts version has deeper(and louder I might add)bass, sounded more dynamic and smooth(listen to the strings in both Dts and DD), the soundfield was slightly wider and more coherent in Dts.

I do not have any doubt that Scarface was remastered. If however the original printmaster was in bad shape already, then there is only so much that can be done during the remastering process. Can't get silk out of a sows ear you know.

[John Beresford]

John,

There is something in your post that I want to correct and to answer your question.

[quote]. To me, DTS sounds AT LEAST more than a few decibels louder than a standard Dolby Digital track, ALWAYS[\quote]

Not exactly John. DD uses a processing routine called dialog normalization to insure that all DD will have the same loudness as the sources change(this was intended for HDTV not DVD's). The more common value used at the encoding state is -27db which equates to about a 3db reduction in overall program level when compared to the master tape(or hard storage drive whichever is used). Dts does not utilize dialog normalization, so its output while seemingly louder that DD actually matches the printmaster to the exact decibel.

[quote]What gets me is why they are not using 96/24 DTS on D-VHS in 5.1 or 6.1 mode. [\quote]

Patience my friend. Its in the spec for D-VHS so its just a matter of time. Personally I think the first 24/96khz movie soundtrack will probably come from Dreamworks as Steven Speilberg owns about a 40-50 percent stake in Dts.


[quote]Is it perhaps there is not enough space to accomodate this on the tape?. [\quote]

No, there is more than enough space. Dts 24/96khz runs at the same data rate as full bitrate 5.1 Dts, 1509kbps.


[quote]Or is it a matter of convenience that 1509 kbps encoders are prevalent in the mixing rooms of the studios so why not use what is around( I would imagine that the DTS half-rate encoders give a audio engineer a choice between DTS half-rate and 1509 full rate so they can pull double duty).[\quote]

Dts can send a 24/96khz update on a disc to update all present encoders sold, so there really is no reason whatsoever that it cannot be used on D-VHS. My personal thoughts are there are not enough products sold with 24/96 decoding chips to justify using it right at this moment. Once enough products are out there with 24/96 decoding, I bet Dts will push to have movies encoded in this format.


[quote]Why BOTHER offering, say, Jaws in DTS when it sounds almost identical to the standard DD mix of the same presentation? [\quote]

Since I stupidly bought both copies, I did a double blind comparison with two other individuals, two identical Sony DVD players, and a MTX pro multiplexing machine for instant switching. I found that I was able(and my two other partners also) to distinguish between each formats soundtrack 100% of the time. The Dts version has deeper(and louder I might add)bass, sounded more dynamic and smooth(listen to the strings in both Dts and DD), the soundfield was slightly wider and more coherent in Dts.

I do not have any doubt that Scarface was remastered. If however the original printmaster was in bad shape already, then there is only so much that can be done during the remastering process. Can't get silk out of a sows ear you know.

Well Your Lordship,

You possess the technical proof on the DD/DTS decibel difference debates, so I cant argue with evidence. However, in my particular system, I must say that it SEEMS to be a much more aggressive experience watching DVDs in DTS rather than in DD---but as YOU said, this is probably just a perception because DTS is missing that normalization process during playback.

Yet I still cant help to think that with the Jaws Anniversary DVD, I DID NOT hear a great difference between the Dolby Digital version and the DTS version of this film (sold separately, and as you, like a moron, I went out and bought both versions after learning that there was a DTS version out there...and Im not even a die hard fan of the film...I since gave the Dolby Digital version to my girl and decided to keep the DTS). In MY PARTICULAR setup, the DTS version of the film added no benefits---PERHAPS the bass was a TICK deeper, as you mention, during John William's haunting score, but overall, like Scarface, I was dissapointed.

Which brings me to the next topic...I was, and will still be, GRAVELY dissapointed in the transfer of this so-called "Anniversary Edition" of Scarface. After waiting OVER A YEAR for this disc, with Universal promising an all-new stellar transfer, what we get is a SLIGHT improvement over the first DVD release---which was an absolute nightmare when watched on its own. My VHS copy of the film actually looked better than the first DVD release. That said, Home Theater magazine just did a review of the Scarface DVD, and offered this explanation for the DVD's bad quality: "The grainyness and darkness and bad quality is no doubt the result of trying to squeeze nearly three hours of video onto ONE disc with special features and DTS audio...."

[kelsci]

Your LORDSHIP, thanks for the info on the 96/24 deal. A software upgrade on the encoders would be great. I understood 96/24 would decode at 48/24 on std dts decoders on receivers for backward compatibility. There are many new receivers including the 96/24 decoders in their specs. Theoretically we could be looking at better movie sound reproduction. I think you make a good point that DREAMWORKS might be the outfit to try it first due to Mr. Spielberg's financial interest in DTS.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[quote]However, in my particular system, I must say that it SEEMS to be a much more aggressive experience watching DVDs in DTS rather than in DD---but as YOU said, this is probably just a perception because DTS is missing that normalization process during playback.[\quote]

John,

I think you are correct, it doesn't just "seem" like a more aggressive mix with Dts, it usually does sound more aggresive even when dialog normalization is accounted for. Your observations are not unfounded.

As far as the Scarface DVD, the reason stated below for the sub par picture and audio seem very plausible.

[John Beresford]

[quote]However, in my particular system, I must say that it SEEMS to be a much more aggressive experience watching DVDs in DTS rather than in DD---but as YOU said, this is probably just a perception because DTS is missing that normalization process during playback.[\quote]

John,

I think you are correct, it doesn't just "seem" like a more aggressive mix with Dts, it usually does sound more aggresive even when dialog normalization is accounted for. Your observations are not unfounded.

As far as the Scarface DVD, the reason stated below for the sub par picture and audio seem very plausible.

Dear Sir,

You really think the magazine's assesment on Brian De Palma's Scarface could be correct? The bad quality could possibly be coming from the attempt to squeeze this nearly three hour long crime drama onto one DVD, with some extra features on disc 1, AND DTS/DD audio? That could indeed cause grain and softness in the picture?

[Enmei]

DTS is much better sound, and given the choices ( if available) I will always choose the DTS version, (ES please :>)


yep, just like when they released the Aliens LEgacy box set ( 20th Anniversary? the 4 disc version)
a while ago .It is said "Digitally REmastered with THX " and the whole hupla.

It exactly sound the same ( well almost) like the regular version.
The only part that I can heard the difference is the extra features, like the deleted scenes, the movies were hard to differentiate.