• QuadraphonicQuad welcomes you and encourages your participation! Treat all members with respect. Please keep all discussions civil, even when you have a strong opinion on a particular topic.

    Do not request or offer for sale or trade copies or files of copyrighted material - no matter how rare or unavailable to the public they might be. We do not condone the illegal sharing of music. There are many places on the internet where you can participate in such transactions, but QuadraphonicQuad is not one of them. We are here to encourage and support new multichannel releases from those companies that still provide them and as such the distribution of illegal copies of recordings is counter-productive to that effort. Any posts of this sort will be deleted without notification.

    Please try to avoid discussions that pit one format against another. Hint for new users: make liberal use of the search facilities here at QuadraphonicQuad. Our message base is an incredibly rich resource of detailed information on virtually all topics pertaining to surround-sound. You will be surprised at what you can find with a little digging!

Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER [DTS DVD]

Rate the DTS DVD of Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER

  • 8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1: Poor Content, Surround Mix, and Fidelity

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

jimfisheye

500 Club - QQ All Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
882
Reaction score
885
Points
93
"That DTS 2496 is in fact the "ringer". Not bait and switch though, just a really really bad idea! Decoded fully, it's slightly but genuinely transparent lossy 24/96. Decoded on gear that only decodes the "core" dts signal, it's heavily lossy. That it also decodes to 48k (in core lossy mode) in that scenario is the telltale but the lossy is magnitudes worse than merely a sample rate conversion to 48k. "

This is some fantastic writing, that I am not sure I get it at all. The "ringer" flavor is the brand name plain DTS24/96 that is not 24/96kHz like my LPCM ELP or Grateful Dead DVD-As are? And the top of the line DTS "flavor brand" to look for is the "MA" flavor, like chili cheese flavor Fritos, not plain? DTS MA is the deluxe real lossless 24/96kHz I take it?
It's not cryptic like that, no.

DTS 2496 is encoded from an LPCM 24/96 master.
If you use a codec that decodes it as fully as possible (per the design), it's a very transparent barely lossy copy of the original 24/96 LPCM. The decoded file is 96k. To the point that it almost nulls with the original even.
If you use a 'legacy' codec (as found in many hardware and even software DVD players) only part of the DTS 2496 data stream is decoded. The decoded file here is 48k.

I say "ringer" because there are so many hardware players in the wild that only have the 'legacy' decoder.

Someone made the decision that it was preferred to have older hardware at least output some sound as opposed to rejecting the disc. Opponents of this decision argue that it would be better to reject the disc (forcing someone to upgrade if they wanted to play it) than to play a degraded version. I call it a ringer because there seem to be a lot of hardware and even software media players that only use the legacy decoder.

DTS is a brand sure. Dolby is another one. (They had the significantly poorer lossy format but they now also offer a lossless version. I don't think they have an "in-between" "ringer" format equivalent to DTS 2496). These aren't meaningless marketing buzzwords. They're companies that make these formats.

Another argument for moving into the 21st century and using a computer and software media players IMHO. When stuff like this comes along, it's just a software hunt. No replacing expensive hardware.

I posted the test results using the Tull files I mentioned a few years ago actually. Not sure if I saved them. When you can take two files and A/B them and hear no difference, and then subtract one from the other (null test) and get nearly zero, that's pretty matter of fact. Likewise when you subtract the core-only dts 2496 decode from a full dts 2496 decode and both hear obvious difference between them and they don't even come close to nulling, that's pretty matter of fact too. (And yes it should go without saying that you need to verify they are at precisely the same volume. Before someone wants to suggest this is an amateur hour volume mismatch between them.)

Someone can feel free to move this tech corner digression to another thread if this is too much. :)
 
Last edited:

himey

800 Club - QQ All Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
397
Points
83
It's not cryptic like that, no.

DTS 2496 is encoded from an LPCM 24/96 master.
If you use a codec that decodes it as fully as possible (per the design), it's a very transparent barely lossy copy of the original 24/96 LPCM. The decoded file is 96k. To the point that it almost nulls with the original even.
If you use a 'legacy' codec (as found in many hardware and even software DVD players) only part of the DTS 2496 data stream is decoded. The decoded file here is 48k.

I say "ringer" because there are so many hardware players in the wild that only have the 'legacy' decoder.

Someone made the decision that it was preferred to have older hardware at least output some sound as opposed to rejecting the disc. Opponents of this decision argue that it would be better to reject the disc (forcing someone to upgrade if they wanted to play it) than to play a degraded version. I call it a ringer because there seem to be a lot of hardware and even software media players that only use the legacy decoder.

DTS is a brand sure. Dolby is another one. (They had the significantly poorer lossy format but they now also offer a lossless version. I don't think they have an "in-between" "ringer" format equivalent to DTS 2496). These aren't meaningless marketing buzzwords. They're companies that make these formats.

Another argument for moving into the 21st century and using a computer and software media players IMHO. When stuff like this comes along, it's just a software hunt. No replacing expensive hardware.

I posted the test results using the Tull files I mentioned a few years ago actually. Not sure if I saved them. When you can take two files and A/B them and hear no difference, and then subtract one from the other (null test) and get nearly zero, that's pretty matter of fact. Likewise when you subtract the core-only dts 2496 decode from a full dts 2496 decode and both hear obvious difference between them and they don't even come close to nulling, that's pretty matter of fact too. (And yes it should go without saying that you need to verify they are at precisely the same volume. Before someone wants to suggest this is an amateur hour volume mismatch between them.)

Someone can feel free to move this tech corner digression to another thread if this is too much. :)
Have you ever encoded your own DTS files from 24/96 PCM sources to both standard DTS and DTS 24.96? You do realize that both will have the same bitrate?

Having done my own DTS encoding in the past, before my equipment did uncompressed PCM, I don't hold DTS 24/96 to any higher standard than standard DTS. Again, they both have the same bitrate and of course they are both lossy. My opinion is they both sound equal and much better than Dulby because the bitrate is more than double.

My question would be, when playing a DTS 24/96 disc on a player that can't handle it and only plays the core, does the bitrate get limited in some way? All my players can handle the DTS 24/96 spec so I can't compare the sound difference.
 

JediJoker

Audio Engineer/Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
524
Reaction score
464
Points
63
Location
Portland, OR, USA
"That DTS 2496 is in fact the "ringer". Not bait and switch though, just a really really bad idea! Decoded fully, it's slightly but genuinely transparent lossy 24/96. Decoded on gear that only decodes the "core" dts signal, it's heavily lossy. That it also decodes to 48k (in core lossy mode) in that scenario is the telltale but the lossy is magnitudes worse than merely a sample rate conversion to 48k. "

This is some fantastic writing, that I am not sure I get it at all. The "ringer" flavor is the brand name plain DTS24/96 that is not 24/96kHz like my LPCM ELP or Grateful Dead DVD-As are? And the top of the line DTS "flavor brand" to look for is the "MA" flavor, like chili cheese flavor Fritos, not plain? DTS MA is the deluxe real lossless 24/96kHz I take it?
You seem to be conflating two concepts:

1. File compression: lossy (data discarded to decrease file size) vs. lossless (file size decreased while retaining all data)

2. "High resolution" audio: greater-than-CD (16-bit/44.1kHz) resolution in bit-depth, sample rate, or both

It is possible, as in the case of DTS 96/24, to be both lossy and hi-res. The audio plays back at 24-bit/96kHz, but data has been permanently removed in the encoding process, thereby decreasing the bitrate but not the bit-depth or sample rate.
 

jimfisheye

500 Club - QQ All Star
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
882
Reaction score
885
Points
93
Have you ever encoded your own DTS files from 24/96 PCM sources to both standard DTS and DTS 24.96? You do realize that both will have the same bitrate?

Having done my own DTS encoding in the past, before my equipment did uncompressed PCM, I don't hold DTS 24/96 to any higher standard than standard DTS. Again, they both have the same bitrate and of course they are both lossy. My opinion is they both sound equal and much better than Dulby because the bitrate is more than double.

My question would be, when playing a DTS 24/96 disc on a player that can't handle it and only plays the core, does the bitrate get limited in some way? All my players can handle the DTS 24/96 spec so I can't compare the sound difference.
The test I did with the Tull files is exactly like I said.
You really can't have two lossy files start out the same (entertaining the premise that core dts and fully decoded dts are literally the same data stream - which goes against what the creator of this format tells you and further would mean the decoding software is spoofing for one or the other) and by some fluke, one of these lossy data streams somehow upgrades itself to nearly null with the LPCM file. That's just a ludicrous insane stretch! A null test is a hard reality. Random samples of different sounding audio will not come remotely close to nulling. If you think that's happening... It really isn't and you really have to look for where you made an error. That's why this tool is so useful and such a hard black and white telltale.

If someone has a listening space so dialed in (and speakers to match) that you can clearly hear something like a sample rate conversion (using SOX) between 96k and 48k, or hear an obvious difference between lossy but fully decoded (to the best of what the system was designed to do) dts 2496 and LPCM 24/96... OK. Must suck to only be able to appreciate about 6 albums in the world that make the cut for you mastering/delivery-wise in this age of volume war hash!

All I can tell you is this is my experience. I'm not making anything up and I didn't falsify anything on the testing I did. I don't work for any of these companies. Maybe there are more people out there with 6 figure reference systems in professionally treated rooms with everything professionally calibrated than I realize and I'm in gorilla theater here and easy to please? If so... well, there you go! :) And lucky me. I get to enjoy dts 2496 fare. While very much noticing mastering flaws that bug me with about 80% of music releases that other people claim to not hear. I don't mean to be flippant about it. I'm trying to be logical and thorough to the best of my ability.
 

ssully

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,308
Reaction score
328
Points
83
Location
in your face
'96/24' in DTS 96/24 means that the audio data input into the compression codec in the studio was 96/24 PCM. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it had any usable content above 22 kHz....or even that it was originally recorded or transferred at 96/24. There's plenty of room for shenanigans on the part of the audio file supplier (the record companies) , as experience with 'HDtracks' has shown.

DTS 96/24 is still lossy for the simple reason that removing >24kHz content is not the *only* thing involved in DTS lossy data compression. So 'restoring' the signal at these (inaudible, btw) frequencies doesn't turn lossy into lossless.

If your AVR or playback chain has a DTS 96/24 decoder, then a DTS 96/24 audio stream fed to it will be decoded as DTS 96/24 (most AVRs IME have some way to indicate this is happening). If yours AVR/chain does not have a DTS 96/24 decoder (in which case it's likely pretty darn old), then it will be decoded as DTS 48/24, (NOT 'downsampled') i.e., without those extended frequencies folded back in...unless your AVR is truly ancient and has no DTS decoder at all.

DTS-HD MA is a true lossless compression algorithm, like FLAC or MLP. It shrinks files but does not lose information.

And as for DTS vs "Dullby" (gah), for the nth time: when the lossy algorithms themselves are different (as AC3 and DTS are) then you can't just go by bitrate specsmanship -- 'this number's bigger therefore better'. AC3 and DTS do things differently. In fact it's quite difficult to compare them fairly. But they both work. As described in one of the best online documents about the case of Dolby vs DTS, well worth reading carefully:

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp


Leaving aside the technically difficulties of fair comparison, I have no doubt that proper double blind tests of DTS vs Dolby , DTS vs DTS 96/24 , and DTS or Dolby vs lossless , would make hash of many deeply held beliefs and overwrought claims of audibility, if those who hold them and claim them were to be subjects of such tests. "Nulling" test differences do not correlate linearly to degree of audible difference, when lossy codecs are involved, because the auditory system doesn't work like a simple waveforms comparer, and lossy codecs are modeled on how the auditory system works (psychoacoustics).
 

sjcorne

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
1,516
Reaction score
4,508
Points
113
Location
Southern NY
There are literally only 5 or 6 posts in this entire thread that are remotely useful to someone looking for info on the surround mix. Move the lossless vs. lossy stuff somewhere else. I'd love to hear more about the mix- Jakko has certainly had his ups and downs when it comes to surround, and the few reviews seem to imply this is one of his better efforts.
 

himey

800 Club - QQ All Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
397
Points
83
'96/24' in DTS 96/24 means that the audio data input into the compression codec in the studio was 96/24 PCM. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it had any usable content above 22 kHz....or even that it was originally recorded or transferred at 96/24. There's plenty of room for shenanigans on the part of the audio file supplier (the record companies) , as experience with 'HDtracks' has shown.

DTS 96/24 is still lossy for the simple reason that removing >24kHz content is not the *only* thing involved in DTS lossy data compression. So 'restoring' the signal at these (inaudible, btw) frequencies doesn't turn lossy into lossless.

If your AVR or playback chain has a DTS 96/24 decoder, then a DTS 96/24 audio stream fed to it will be decoded as DTS 96/24 (most AVRs IME have some way to indicate this is happening). If yours AVR/chain does not have a DTS 96/24 decoder (in which case it's likely pretty darn old), then it will be decoded as DTS 48/24, (NOT 'downsampled') i.e., without those extended frequencies folded back in...unless your AVR is truly ancient and has no DTS decoder at all.

DTS-HD MA is a true lossless compression algorithm, like FLAC or MLP. It shrinks files but does not lose information.

And as for DTS vs "Dullby" (gah), for the nth time: when the lossy algorithms themselves are different (as AC3 and DTS are) then you can't just go by bitrate specsmanship -- 'this number's bigger therefore better'. AC3 and DTS do things differently. In fact it's quite difficult to compare them fairly. But they both work. As described in one of the best online documents about the case of Dolby vs DTS, well worth reading carefully:

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp


Leaving aside the technically difficulties of fair comparison, I have no doubt that proper double blind tests of DTS vs Dolby , DTS vs DTS 96/24 , and DTS or Dolby vs lossless , would make hash of many deeply held beliefs and overwrought claims of audibility, if those who hold them and claim them were to be subjects of such tests. "Nulling" test differences do not correlate linearly to degree of audible difference, when lossy codecs are involved, because the auditory system doesn't work like a simple waveforms comparer, and lossy codecs are modeled on how the auditory system works (psychoacoustics).
We can agree to disagree and move forward.
 

watsy_73

Well-known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
100
Reaction score
195
Points
43
Location
UK
Really glad i got this, great album!
Not just a great bass player but a very competent vocalist to boot.
The mix is very good, a very nice balance to my ears.
 
Top