DTS vs. 5.1 Dolby vs. SACD

Good hello. I'm a new poster, and quite a novice, so if this has been discussed before, I apologize. I would like to ask you ALL about the 5.1 situation. Now, I only know from DTS and 5.1 Dolby, so I have no idea about SACD, but , it is my opinion that DTS sounds FAR supirior to Dolby. And yet, Warners has decided to release the Talking Heads and Flaming Lips reissues in 5.1 Dolby. I'm not happy with that. I'm would like to know your opinions on the subject AND if the DTS format still has a future or not. Thank you.

 

I thought the Talking Heads also had Dolby and DVD-Audio on the DVD side of the Dual Disc.

 

Please explain the difference. Maybe I'm not hearing it well. I know there are audio options on the menu.

 

If you have a dvd-audio capable player, then you can listen to the 5.1 mixes in a lossless, compressed format. I believe the sampling rate/bit depth for the Talking Heads discs are 96kHz/24 bits, but I may be mistaken. When you are listening to a Dolby Digital or dts track, you are listening to a lossy, compressed format; in other words, these formats reduce the amount of storage space needed by throwing away musical information that is allegedly not going to be noticed by the listener anyway.

SACD is an entirely different format, but like DVD-A it is not lossy and requires hardware specifically designed to play it back.

 

I've heard some awesome Dolby tracks, lackluster DTS ones, and SACD's that disappoint in surround... and viceversa (if that makes sense).

It's all in the mastering (although I may be inclined to think I'd choose DTS over Dolby most of the time...)!

 

DTS has a higher bitrate than Dolby Digital, so it is generally superior, except as Javier pointed out this must taken on a case by case basis. DVD-A is lossless as is SACD, but you do need a special player. I always search out DTS discs when I purchase a DVD.

 

When Dolby is at 540 kps, like on D-Theater tapes, it seems just as good as the D-Theater DTS tracks that are at a very slightly higher rate over the DVD's or LD's. I think it really comes down to what you bring to these codecs. Like, Stir Warz Phantom Menace is gonna sound fabulous in any codec that you use, IMO.

It's a shame that they don't run the higher rates on DVD's, not even the so-called Superbits, IMO. One high-rate audio track would make sense on Superbutts!

IMO, Dolby is better than DVD lets it be, ditto por DTS "cut-rate".

 

In general terms the audio quality (going from lower to higher) would be: Dolby Digital, DTS, HiRez (ie.: SACD or DVD-Audio).

As has been pointed out here before, there are DTS tracks that sound as good or as bad as their Dolby Digital counterparts. This is due to how they have been worked out and, sometimes (someone in the business told me about this) because they port a Dolby Digital track to DTS because it gets them more sales, so you get the same quality.

SACD and DVD-Audio are another thing altogether. Their quality is what can really show you what your 5.1 rig can do. Yet, you can have a DVD-Audio and if you do not have a DVD-Audio cabable player not even know you are not listening to the HiRez (high resoution) tracks. Why? because the DVD-Audio 'Advanced Resolution' (read high resolution) menus are not accesible by normal DVD-Video players.

SACDs do not have menus at all, yet you migth be playing a HiRez SACD disk and not be listening to the HiRez track given that many of them nowadays as what is called 'hybrids' (a SACD with a second normal CD layer) that can pass as regular CDs and that will sound like them too if you do not have an SACD-capable player.

Hope this helps.

 

Dolby Digital, as used on the current DVD is a more efficient code than that employed by DTS. Thus it can provide excellent results with a slightly lower bit rate. It was designed to meet the rigid requirements set for the DVD format as a mandatory 5.1 feature.

Richard.

 

When DTS started they used the full bitrate and it was clearly superior to Dolby Digital, however, they mucked about and decided to release DTS at half the bitrate which put it very close to Dolby Digital. It never made any sense to me. Who comes up with these ideas?
THEN, the idiots decide to release a new "superbit" DVD that supposedly was way superior to Dolby Digital.
WTF, They were simply giving us the full bitrate that they took away from us when theyt started diluting the DTS format.
Now look at some of these so called "Superbit" DVD's. Most of them don't use the full bitrate now either.
Check out this link for giggles.

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

 

Not quite....at first DTS was lisencing films and making the DVD's, and LD's, previously. Then, the studios wanted to stop giving them films when DVD took off. DTS didn't want to let anybody else have their encode machines but relented and let the studios have 'em as a survival choice. It's the studios that decided to do "cut-rate" DTS.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the 'efficient' part of your post.

 

It seems to be an endemic custom in the audio and audio-related industries to move from HiRez to lower rez and, if at all possible, to no rez at all. This is ludicrous, its happening everywhere. What's the purpose of giving us less than optimum products?

 

I didn't know that. I can't believe someone would take a format which supposedly is better because of a higher bitrate and then chop its resolution in half. Who makes these choices, anyway?

Ah, I get it. Someone who says "just encode it at half the bitrate and don't use a dual layer, dual sided disc! Nobody will ever notice!!!"

 

Sentiment was against "flipper" DVD's and for lots of extras. The studios wanted half-rate DTS as a calling card, as if our discs have it all. I have quite a few of those early DTS, in-house produced high-bit DVD's, and about 15 of the LD's too, for that matter. Oh, and about 20 D-VHS tapes with high-rate also. They're all a big cut above what goes on today's DVD's, like the Walk The Line DTS-lite DVD I view last night. I just don't hear much difference between DD and DTS on DVD's myself, lately. The 540-DD on D-VHS is really good, much better than the higest rate, which I think is about 440, that's been put on DVD.

To me, Super Bit has been such a joke. They could do either DD or DTS really right but NO-oooo! The studios decreed deproved product, not DTS, the company. I think they'd love to be allowed to make DVD's that they could sell for a premium again. ...if it was up to them.

 

This is a sad state of affairs.

 

I very greatful that all of you have commented on this, but I just realized.... I only listen to these recording on my SONY CD/DVD player DVP-S363. Will I have to buy another system to listen to the DVD-A's correctly?

 

Sorry to RE-post. But I (once again, stressing, just a novis) have noticed BAD sounding DTS movies (the 50's music in American Warewolf, and Pulp Fiction), but I have thoroughly enjoyed the Beatles Anthology and the Zappa and Super Furry Animals recordings on the format. But, then again, I haven't heard the other formats yet.

 

Yes, you will need to buy a universal disc player or a DVD player capable of DVD-Audio, and also 3 pairs of very, very expensive analog cables. Also make sure that your receiver has the proper 5.1 analog input.

 

Uh, there's absolutely no reason for him to get 'very, very' expensive cables. I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not there really is a difference in sound between cables. Some believe it, some don't, but the bottom line is any cables that are well made, and a relatively heavy gauge will suffice - and they don't have to be 'very, very' expensive. Basically, don't use the crappy, thin, POS cables that come packaged with these components.

 

I am very sorry, I meant that as a joke.

 

No need to apologise.

 

I think "Superbit" DVD's released at 754Kbits per second should be called "Superhalfbit" so we can avoid wasting our money.

I own one superbit DVD, The 5th element. It was released at the 754kbit rate, why? I think a Superbit DVD should present the best in both audio and video, no comprimises in either area, and no extras. I thought that was supposed to be the "Superbit" motto.

 

I believe we have just hit on a new law of Marketdynamics: just as in Thermodynamics everything tends towards chaos, products - in time - tend towards mediocrity.

This reminds me of restaurants. Many stylish restaurants open and have great dishes with good quality food. After a while the product tends to lose quality. Thus, IME, these restaurants are always best visited when they have recently opened.