Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    DTS/DD vs. CD Audio quality-opinions?

    Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types. We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback. Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio.
    Here's what we collectively came up with:
    Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo
    Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version
    Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already.
    Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio
    The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio.

    Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs. 24 bit "word length"? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers?
    Any comments?
    Last edited by kexodusc; 01-12-2004 at 07:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Did you compare stereo of the CD and multi channel for DD/DTS? Multi channel will or should sound better. That is one of its benefits
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    We did compare the multi channel, but we were listening for detail. We also compared 2.0 Dolby Digital, on a few which still clearly sounded more detailed and natural. Maybe this is the norm, but I was previously under the impression that Dolby Digital and DTS were lossy forms of compression that didn't quite measure up to CD (which is limited in itself).

  4. #4
    Oldest join date recoveryone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types. We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback. Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio.
    Here's what we collectively came up with:
    Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo
    Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version
    Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already.
    Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio
    The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio.

    Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs. 24 bit "word length"? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers?
    Any comments?
    I would at first suggest expanding your (Various) music choices to include some jazz, classical and R&B. IMHO slower type music gives you a chance to really evaluate the true sound of any disk (when you can hear each instrument). I remember back in 84 when CD's were coming out and I went to a local HiFi shop in the New England area. The sales person put in a Classical CD and my ears and jaw just hit the floor. I don't really care for this form of music, but hearing every little sound so clear (by those standards then) was just awesome. Now with High Rez form of music out there (192/24-bit, 96/24-bit & 48/24-bit) the sound is much fuller and rich almost like sitting in on a studio session. IMHO live music (concerts) is not all that good in this format and that may be why I prefer the jazz style in High Rez. You hear each and every note from all insturment. I would ask you to try Donald ***en Nightfly DVD-A and play it on the DTS mode and sit back and close your eyes. And you should not have to play any of the test disk at high volume to hear the difference
    HT
    Pioneer Elite SC lx502
    Pioneer Elite N50
    Pioneer Cassette CTM66R
    Pioneer Elite BDP 85FD

    Vizio P series 2160p
    Panamax 5300 EX

  5. #5
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Admittedly there was no classical music sampled...we just didn't have one.
    However plenty of jazzy bluesy stuff in Diana Krall and slower music with Neil Young. Truth be told, the most spectacular of the bunch was the somewhat progressive passages in Metallica's album.
    I do agree that the slower jazzy selections would offer a more noticeable difference but that being said, if a format is suppose to be better, it should noticeable regardless of the type of music being played.
    I have no doubt DVD-A is superior to CD. But our test was to compare basic DVD-video DTS and Dolby Digital recordings to the same recording on CD, not DVD-audio hi-res 5.1 formats.
    We generally found the Dolby Digital (448 kbps) to be superior to CD Audio's sound despite giving up bit rate. I'm just trying to find an easy answer as to why? I'm assuming bit-rate isn't the all important factor.
    For MP3's and similar formats, generally, the better the bitrate, the better the sound. Why doesn't this hold true for the CD vs. Dolby Digital or DTS? I can only assume it has to do with sampling rate or 24bit "wordlength" producing more resolution.

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    We did compare the multi channel, but we were listening for detail. We also compared 2.0 Dolby Digital, on a few which still clearly sounded more detailed and natural. Maybe this is the norm, but I was previously under the impression that Dolby Digital and DTS were lossy forms of compression that didn't quite measure up to CD (which is limited in itself).
    CD is not a lossy format, DD and DTS are. CD is limited to human perception capability, or the vast majority of it.
    Perhaps your listening protocol has something to do with this? One may have been a little louder than the other?
    mtrycrafts

  7. #7
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    We had to adjust volumes, as the DVD's generally seemed louder than CD source.
    I understand the lossy encoding nature of DTS/DD. I wonder, since DTS has a higher bitrate than CD audio, and both have higher sampling rates and use 24 bit wordlengths, does this over come the "lossy compression" set back?.
    Is it possible that compressing a 24 bit, 48 kHz audio track could sound better than CD's 44.1 kHz, 16 bit signal without compression?
    What I'm really looking for is a decent article or link comparing the three formats, I haven't been able to find one that compare sound quality with fundamentals to support the analysis.

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    We had to adjust volumes, as the DVD's generally seemed louder than CD source.
    I understand the lossy encoding nature of DTS/DD. I wonder, since DTS has a higher bitrate than CD audio, and both have higher sampling rates and use 24 bit wordlengths, does this over come the "lossy compression" set back?.
    Is it possible that compressing a 24 bit, 48 kHz audio track could sound better than CD's 44.1 kHz, 16 bit signal without compression?
    What I'm really looking for is a decent article or link comparing the three formats, I haven't been able to find one that compare sound quality with fundamentals to support the analysis.
    DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking. Same with DD or any perceptual coding. The bit rate is not everything but the algorythm used is. That is what calculates and discards inaudible signals.
    DTS/DD has 5.1 channels too, so that may explain what you may be thinking.

    I am not aware of any reliable DBT comparisons on the three.
    mtrycrafts

  9. #9
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking. Same with DD or any perceptual coding. The bit rate is not everything but the algorythm used is. That is what calculates and discards inaudible signals.
    DTS/DD has 5.1 channels too, so that may explain what you may be thinking.

    I am not aware of any reliable DBT comparisons on the three.
    Impossible to do a DBT like you specify given that there are no soundtracks I'm aware of that have two-channel 16/44.1 PCM, DD, and DTS tracks that were encoded simultaneously.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types. We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback. Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio.
    Here's what we collectively came up with:
    Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo
    Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version
    Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already.
    Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio
    The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio.

    Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs. 24 bit "word length"? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers?
    Any comments?
    Very interesting results, although I would caution that you're comparing surround tracks with two-channel tracks, and there are lot of other variables at play other than the formats themselves. For example, in order to put together a 5.1 soundtrack for an older recording, the mixing engineer needs to actually go all the way back to the multichannel master tape, which might have significantly different tonal characteristics than what ultimately made its way down to the original two-channel master tape (a lot of vinyl masters had EQ and/or compression applied, and the CD transfers were done from these without compensating for this). Also, keep in mind that a lot of CDs have had multiple remasterings done, so different versions of the CD releases can also sound different (a lot of the early transfers were not done properly).

    I've done similar comparisons with all sources folded down to two-channel, but even that method is flawed given that the channel balances between two-channel and repurposed 5.1 mixes can be very different, and create a dissimiar sound overall even in two-channel. In general, I've noted that DD can come very close to the audio quality of the CD versions, and can be superior in some cases (these were all two-channel direct comparisons). These differences could have more to do with the mastering or other source differences. In cases where I know that the DD and DTS tracks were encoded simultaneously at identical levels, the DTS track typically sounds subtly better.

    I think for now, it's a good subjective comparison for the various versions of those specific recordings. Whether or not those listenings can be applied more widely is where some caution's in order.

  11. #11
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking.
    mtrycraft: I admit to being very inexperienced with the technical details of digital formats, so I have to ask a question here. Every source I've been able to find tells me CD audio quality's bit rate is 1.4Mb/s, whereas DTS bit rate is 1.5 Mb/s. Masking and encoding aside, my simple math gives me a +0.1 edge to DTS over CD. What am I doing wrong here?
    How is 1.5 not bigger, or more than 1.4???
    My head is starting to hurt...
    I do agree with you, bitrate isn't everything, one has only to compare MP3 with WMA files to realize that.
    Still, my admittedly subjective test left me somewhat embarassed, as I previously had been telling my friends that there was no way a DVD concert's audio quality could top that of a CD...boy was I wrong.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123

    Not sure what you have found here...

    It may be that you have proved that your system is better at surround sound that at stereo. Repeating the experiment in a 2 channel only environment might yield very different results (it did for me).

    Also worth mentioning that when I have compared DVD's to CD's using the 44.1/16 bit soundtrack on the DVD the CD has generally sounded way better. case in point Elton John double album of greatest hits which I have on DVD, CD and vinyl. The DVD is so bad in comparison to the other 2 it aint funny.

    I have other examples (but cant remember them as I type):

    As for your DTS throughput figure - that is for 6 channels of audio as compared to CD's 2 channels. DTS does seem to sound better than the equivalent DD5.1 tracks but I am not sure for music it beats CD (in 2 channel format).

  13. #13
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Maxg: You are very much right. The CD in 2 channel sounded a way more real than Dolby Digital in stereo, I wouldn't compare those two formats. 2-Channel Dolby Digital seemed to have way too much bass output at the sub, had to be turned back a bit. Might just be the setup we used.

    As far as my "test" results go, I don't think I've found much at all, nothing of any reasonable value to anyone at least. If everyone would go back and read the original post, you'll see I was looking for any kind of scientific support to reinforce our very subjective test. Like any subjective test, 4 different people could use the same equipment, the same sources, and have the opposite results too. I was just wondering if there was any science out there to support our result...don't think I'm going to find it now.

    At this point, I might consider doing the test again, but with a soundmeter to more accurately measure volumes. I also wonder how much the studio engineering influences the results...maybe more detail was given to the 5.1 tracks than the stereo tracks? I don't know.

    Thanks to all who have posted, by the way...some food for thought

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    mtrycraft: I admit to being very inexperienced with the technical details of digital formats, so I have to ask a question here. Every source I've been able to find tells me CD audio quality's bit rate is 1.4Mb/s, whereas DTS bit rate is 1.5 Mb/s. Masking and encoding aside, my simple math gives me a +0.1 edge to DTS over CD. What am I doing wrong here?
    How is 1.5 not bigger, or more than 1.4???
    My head is starting to hurt...
    I do agree with you, bitrate isn't everything, one has only to compare MP3 with WMA files to realize that.
    Still, my admittedly subjective test left me somewhat embarassed, as I previously had been telling my friends that there was no way a DVD concert's audio quality could top that of a CD...boy was I wrong.
    I am pretty sure that DTS bit rate is for all channels, not one channel as in CD.
    That would make DTS bit rate of about 7.5Mbits/sec+. I seriously doubt that.
    Why not ask Sir Terrence at HT.
    mtrycrafts

  15. #15
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    mtrycraft: That would better explain the relative file sizes between CD and DTS tracks, good thinking man...
    Curious, if theres a bit of information being translated back into audio information, does it matter what channel it is emitted from as long as the sound is being reproduced?
    Certainly each channel in stereo would have more detail than its counterpart in 5.1, but the cumulative effect...never mind...I'm obviously in way over my head...sigh...getting old...
    Well, I've opened a whole can of worms with this thread. Curious as I am, I have to know how and why everything works, sometimes at the expense of enjoyment.
    I'm going to have to learn to get past that.
    Things were so much simple with vinyl...

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Curious, if theres a bit of information being translated back into audio information, does it matter what channel it is emitted from as long as the sound is being reproduced?
    Certainly each channel in stereo would have more detail than its counterpart in 5.1, but the cumulative effect...never mind...I'm obviously in way over my head...sigh...getting old...
    Well, I've opened a whole can of worms with this thread. Curious as I am, I have to know how and why everything works, sometimes at the expense of enjoyment.
    I'm going to have to learn to get past that.
    Things were so much simple with vinyl...
    No it doesnt matter which channel is being reproduced. It does matter, however, when there are 6 channels being reproduced together.

    Vinyl has its own complexities but ultimately is probably more simple to understand. Another reason I have re-embrased it....

  17. #17
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    I am pretty sure that DTS bit rate is for all channels, not one channel as in CD.
    That would make DTS bit rate of about 7.5Mbits/sec+. I seriously doubt that.
    Why not ask Sir Terrence at HT.
    The Dts bit rate is spread over the 5.1 channels. For DVD the bitrate is 1509kbps. To understand how Dts(and DD potentially)can sound better than 16/44.1 you must understand how the encoding process works. To put in in simple terms Dts encoding discards signals that are masked and rendered inaudible by louder adjacient signals(precedence effect) Once those signals are discarded the encoding process breaks down these signals by frequency. These signals are encoded into the Dts bitstream at 20 bit depths. So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution. Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range. Where Dts has the edge over DD lies in Dts's ability to encode not only the primary signals, but it also codes the sub band frequencies as well because it has the bits to do so.

    One would think that uncompressed 16/44.1khz PCM should sound better than compressed 20/48khz. But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail. Dts and DD more efficiently code signals that ARE heard with more resolution, lower noise and greater dynamic range(CD has a dynamic range of 96 db and Dts has about 120db)
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    . So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution. Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range.

    This can only be true if the master had the 20 bit depth. If your source is only 16 bits, that is all you can hope to ever get. But I would defer this to better experts in th efield, beyond both of us. Sorry.

    But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail.

    Yes,
    That is exactely why perceptual coding works so well.
    mtrycrafts

  19. #19
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Wonderful explanation Terrible T, simple, logical, and easy to follow. At least now I have a better grasp of the variables involved and their impact on sound quality.

  20. #20
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    . So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution. Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range.

    This can only be true if the master had the 20 bit depth. If your source is only 16 bits, that is all you can hope to ever get. But I would defer this to better experts in th efield, beyond both of us. Sorry.

    But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail.

    Yes,
    That is exactely why perceptual coding works so well.
    Well Mtry, its not as simple as 16 bits is all you get when you speak of encoding to Dts(or any high bit perceptual encoder). Remember, during the coding process you are getting rid of unheard signals. That includes the floor noise, and any signal that have louder adjoining signals. It is then re-encoded at 20bits at 48khz sampling. While the sampling doesn't necessarily raise the cutoff frequency(the 16bit audio has already limited that to 22.050khz) you will lower the noise floor and get an increase in dynamic range as a result. The audio is also reclocked(which would reduce any process inducing jitter) which aids in smoothing the more complex instrument textures(strings, cymbal crashes glocks and high brass). So you may only have a 16 bit master, but there are some 20 bit performance features you get from coding the information at 20 bits
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    111

    2 channel redbook audio

    2 channel redbook audio cd if mastered properly will sound better than DD or DTS anyday for the simple reason that both DTS and DD use lossy compressions.The test that you did proves any of the following:
    1.Your audio setup is better for movies than stereo.
    2.Some audio cds are mastered very badly.There is a chance that the newer DTS or DD version could have done a better job.THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT DD OR DTS FORMAT IS BETTER.

  22. #22
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by hertz
    2 channel redbook audio cd if mastered properly will sound better than DD or DTS anyday for the simple reason that both DTS and DD use lossy compressions.The test that you did proves any of the following:
    1.Your audio setup is better for movies than stereo.
    2.Some audio cds are mastered very badly.There is a chance that the newer DTS or DD version could have done a better job.THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT DD OR DTS FORMAT IS BETTER.
    There are good and bad recordings in every formats. How a performance is captured and how well it is encoded in LP, CD. or DVD is what matters. The recording engieners or the studio has lot to do in making excellent or lousy recordings in whatever media. The exception being the cassette format which is really technically inferiror as an analog medium.

    But I tend to agree with Sir Terenece's brillant laymanish explanation of the difference between CD and DD/DTS. At first glance you would think that because DD/DTS uses lossy compression versus uncompressed encoding in CDs, that the former is inferior. But psychoaccoustic-based compressions simply discard what are unnesessary in the encoding process, thus leaving more room for the more audible segments of the musical passage to get more bits. CD's uncompressed format allocates the same 16-bit word length even for complete silence. I consider that an unnecessary waste.

    Hence, DD/DTS sound works wonderfully to make prominent instruments sound more detailed. I, too, have experienced hearing some sonic detailing and spatial depth in DD/DTS that I did not hear with CDs of the same title. Even the instrumental balance is different. I cannot say outright that DD/DTS is better, Some are. Like I said there are good and bad titles in every format. DD/DTS definitely sound dfifferent in a way that gives a totally new listening experience. I can only assume that the reocrding engineers who revisited the old multi-track masters did a good job at remixing into multi-channel and DD or DTS format. I can speak of the George Benson Breezin' reocridng which I had as an LP, then CD and now in DVD-Audio where I only play the DD tracks as I still don't have a universal player. Same with Fourplay, I have the CD and the DVD-A. Much as I am a stereophile, I must admit I get more instrumental detailing and depth in multi-channel playback of these recodings.

    However, I must admit that not all DD/DTS transcriptions are an improvement over their CD counterpart. I find The King and I DVD soundtrack no better that the CD soundtrack. Same with the Fiddler On The Roof. However, the My Fair Lady DVD sound has more body than the CD soundtrack of the same. But that's just me.

  23. #23
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by hertz
    2 channel redbook audio cd if mastered properly will sound better than DD or DTS anyday for the simple reason that both DTS and DD use lossy compressions.The test that you did proves any of the following:
    1.Your audio setup is better for movies than stereo.
    2.Some audio cds are mastered very badly.There is a chance that the newer DTS or DD version could have done a better job.THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT DD OR DTS FORMAT IS BETTER.
    This information isn't quite correct. All a lossey codec does is pack signals more efficently. Any signals removed are below the threshold of hearing anyway, so it doesn't matter that there are discarded. 2 channel redbook CD does not have the dynamic range or the spatial deminsionality of either Dts or DD. Redbook CD does not have the flexibilty of bitrate, bit depth, or sample rate that Dts has. Redbook CD does not have the LFE channel which can be used for more bass impact. Dts(and DD for that matter) can have a lower noise floor than redbook CD.

    A well mastered Dts CD with the highest bit rate can sound identical to the master tape. It also has the benefit of multichannel to properly place ambience where it belongs, to the sides and rear. It can operate on the fly, and transparently in a lossey, or lossless mode depending on the complexity of the original PCM signal.

    So to say the redbook CD will sound better than Dts and DD based on the sole fact that they are lossey is not factual and just shows a lack of understanding of lossey codecs, and how they encode audio.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  24. #24
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3
    I agree with most of the posts here, just want to add something.
    1) Perfectly agree with the fact that it all depends, first of all, on the mixing. If the music is not recorded and mixed with quality, there is nothing no good raw material to encode. And unfortunately this happens too many times.
    2) It depends on your gear. Using a cheap reciever, not really good speakers, and using junk cables, one probably has nothing to worry about these differences.
    3) I suppose that you meant PCM vs DD or DTS. CDs can be encoded both in PCM (Pulse code modulation) AND in DTS.
    PCM requires lots of space, because it has a lot of data. (used either for silence, so there is really alot of infomation, non compressed, but is not the music you hear (or your gear is reproducing), it's just a lot of data. DD and DTS has less data, but more "audible" ones.

    PCM doesn't sound good "because" it is a better tecnology. The same music, if recorded both in PCM, DD, and DTS, with the same mixing effort (including artistical capacity, that you can't measoure) will sound well in PCM, some better in DD, and much better in DTS. (The best would be in SACD.)

    Unofrtunately there are really few recordings done in all these formats. What's more, i would add that is quite frustrating to have a +20000 system, to spend more tha 1k bucks on cables, and to find out that 90% of the dvd's are not much better then your old stereo VCR. There is a lot of tecnology, but unfortunately we are lacking artists. Like having a lot of painting, but no designers or painters.

    Now some tech data.
    DD compresses a 5.1 soundtrack to 448k. It is capable to 640, but being part of the DVD standard, it is limited to 448.
    DTS uses 1.4Mbps for CD and 1.5 for movies.
    Dolby sais that they have a better compression pattern. Maybe. But not 3.4 times better. This is why the audio of the DTS movies (concerts etc) souns better. When the original recording is better.

    By standard (LAW) every DVD has to have a PCM (stereo, what you would got on the cd) track, a DD track, and some a DTS track.
    Try DTS. Good sound (if the recording is good). Swithc to DD. You will hear that is worst. Swithc to PCM. Crap.

  25. #25
    SACD fanatic
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6

    Question hmmm

    First I must say that while this is kind of interesting to compare all this, it really is a BAD test for so many reasons.

    First to be more accurate in comparing these codecs, stereo versions of Dolby, DTS, and CD at max bit rates would be more fair. That isn't possible, so it's a funky way to compare everything at best.

    Next, it wasn't clear just what kind of Dolby and DTS tracks were compared. There are a lot of numbers being thrown around, but they are not set in stone. Yes DTS has a max bit rate of 1.5mb, and DD 448, (the higher one is never used). But for movies the 1.5mb rate is RARE! The rate most commonly used for DTS video is the 754K rate, not the 1.5mb. The max DTS bit rate on a movie would absolutely smoke up space like you wouldn't believe.

    Next, the max for DD is 448, but the 348? rate is quite common as well.

    When comparing DTS to anything it should be made clear what kind of DTS disc is being used. If it's a concert DTS title, it might run at the 700+ K rate, not the max. A DTS music CD does run at over 1.4mb and that rate is fixed.

    Also, what dark side of the moon in DD 5.1 is that? I know the DSOTM 'making of' is dolby stereo only isn't that correct? So what version is this?

    As for the compression techniques used, it goes far beyond simply being technically lossy. There are other tricks going on to compress the data while making the fewest changes to the sound (that can be percieved). I bet most people don't know that DD is no longer stereo past 15kHz. To save space, sounds above that become mono. Many would argue that at 15k sounds aren't as noticable. DTS has many similar tricks as well.

    I tend to shy away from DTS, MP3 etc based on theory alone. The very basis of these codecs is to CHANGE the sound to make other things possible. Whether or not I or anyone else can tell is kinda beside the point. For DVD movies DD and DTS work just fine. But in the case of music we now have SACD and DVD-A, so the CD vs DTS thing is Soooo late 1990's. Sorry I couldn't resist ;0)

    As for CD not being lossy, the isn't entirely true. PCM by its very nature is lossy if you really think about it. Without decimation, a CD would hold like what? 3 minutes of music?

    Even having said all that, I have come across plenty of DD, DTS and CD that sound really good. But comparing them in this fashion is just plain weird. The dolby 2.0 tracks run at about 180+K? And DTS stereo doesn't really exist, except maybe as an artificial down-mix.


    ..... more thoughts to ponder

    - Tony



    www.StrangerSoundLabs.com

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Polk Audio RTi12's w/ NAD C370
    By MichaelBreeden in forum Speakers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2004, 07:01 AM
  2. New audio club in S.E. Michigan - hopefully
    By soundhd in forum General Audio
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-2004, 07:31 PM
  3. Audio Illusion
    By Swerd in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-06-2004, 07:53 AM
  4. Audio tron or Creative Wireless Music??
    By twwesn in forum Digital Domain & Computer Audio
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-16-2003, 10:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •