DTS-HD vs DTS-X

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

alexander J

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
213
Hi guys, we split into our company's goals with DTS management right now on promoting latest audio codecs.
DTS-Master Audio Codec is more superior than DTS-X in terms of discrete presentation of channels in surround sound reproduction for music content that is not applied to videos and films. If you need to make your surround channels to represent the specific audio information you would count on professional engineers to do the hard work of mixing and not rely on software programmer who made the same kind of algorithm to configure channels for any time of configuration. However DTS Master Audio can also downmix your music from 7.1 to 5.1 but it is for downmixing specifically. Engineers know about that and will produce the mix accordingly but not with DTS-X. We are interested in the industry to give us work not to replace us with the software gimmicks. It is for where big clients in the video in the film industry because they need always smth new to approach the majors. So they can create the movies in surround sound for any home theater configuration. I advise you not to promote here DTS-X as audio codec for music, it is a killer. Unless I will be on a board with DTS to lead this development that is also still possible.
 
Hi Alexander,

I'm not sure why you think DTS:X is not good for music. Here is some technical data from a DTS:X music video I have that show identical bit/sample rates for both DTS:X and DTS-HDMA formats of this audio track. BTW This sounds absolutely spectacular in DTS:X!

ID : 2
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Format profile : X / MA / Core
Mode : 16
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Codec ID : A_DTS
Duration : 5 min 27 s
Bit rate mode : Variable / Variable / Constant
Bit rate : 7 853 kb/s / 7 853 kb/s / 1 509 kb/s
Channel(s) : Object Based / 8 channels / 6 channels
Channel positions : Object Based / Front: L C R, Side: L R, Back: L R, LFE / Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : / 48.0 kHz / 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 93.750 FPS (512 SPF)
Bit depth : / 24 bits / 24 bits
Compression mode : / Lossless / Lossy
Stream size : 307 MiB (24%)
Default : Yes
Forced : No
 
Hi Alexander,

I'm not sure why you think DTS:X is not good for music. Here are some technical data from a DTS:X music video I have that show identical bit/sample rates for both DTS:X and DTS-HDMA formats of this audio track. BTW This sounds absolutely spectacular in DTS:X!

ID : 2
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Format profile : X / MA / Core
Mode : 16
Format settings, Endianness : Big
Codec ID : A_DTS
Duration : 5 min 27 s
Bit rate mode : Variable / Variable / Constant
Bit rate : 7 853 kb/s / 7 853 kb/s / 1 509 kb/s
Channel(s) : Object Based / 8 channels / 6 channels
Channel positions : Object Based / Front: L C R, Side: L R, Back: L R, LFE / Front: L C R, Side: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : / 48.0 kHz / 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 93.750 FPS (512 SPF)
Bit depth : / 24 bits / 24 bits
Compression mode : / Lossless / Lossy
Stream size : 307 MiB (24%)
Default : Yes
Forced : No

You right identical, but not better it is the same 24bit/96k, they pretend that this a new superior codec and it is not it is just another gimmick without wide strategic marketing, that why you see more threads here on Forum about Dolby Atmos then DTS-X. You can write a codec anyhow you want the matter is how you market it. Until I will put my hand on it and make it a real tool for artists and producers to use it, whey will stand only for major studios to encode movies.
 
DTS-X I am sure is a version of the Atmos the DTS version.
This is not entirely that, both companies have very talented engineers and software programmers who are working hard to technically source sound in most presentable form. But Dolby has also a position in the company working with artists and music producers with Dolby Atmos. His name is Tim Pride and his email is [email protected]. You can write him to answer any questions about music in surround sound and he will answer you. I have to get on a top of the mountain to write to CEO of Xperi(DTS) so he will pass my request about music to his company officers and only because he gave me an Award in 2002 for the Best New Surround Music Composition. I have my communication with him about other matters that are not for this forum, but you can figure out now that the deal is.
 
Some time back, Alexander.......there were a few members on this site inquiring about obtaining some of your older releases.

Namely your DTS CD'S and DVDA'S from back when.


So I have to ask, are any of these discs in DTS CD and or DVDA still obtainable ?? Enquiring collectors would love to know and if so where can someone obtain them ?




Thanks in advance, :D

fizzy
 
Some time back, Alexander.......there were a few members on this site inquiring about obtaining some of your older releases.

Namely your DTS CDs and DVDA'S from back when.


So I have to ask, are any of these discs in DTS CD and or DVDA still obtainable ?? Enquiring collectors would love to know and if so where can someone obtain them?




Thanks in advance, :D

fizzy

Of course my Friend,
You can buy the complete collection of my classical releases on Blu-ray Audio here on Amazon. And it is only 2 left, you may harry because I don't know if the new shipment will be where before the Thanksgiving.
And my electronic collection is sold out already but it will be where before Christmas. I can not claim that I am as good in electronic music as BT but I will bite his ass in terms of surround presentation big time.

Sorry, guys, I don't have DTS-CD and DVD-A's anymore so if
smb got them you can sell it on Amazon pages for $200-300 as a rear item, especially my first Album "Space or Dream of Life" or on Sotheby's Crysty;):mad:@: but please do me a favor don't sell them on eBay.
 
Actually about my electronic music other than "Space or Dream of Life" that is won The Best Surround Music Composition in 2002 on the First Surround Music Awards in Beverly Hilton LA.
In about 2008 I met with the guy from DTS flying my ass from Detroit to LA to talk with him about music in Surround Sound. We met with him at the very nice coffee shop in Santa Monica spend about an hour talking and I give him my new Album "Solaris" to release it on DTS Entertainment label, next thing I know BT is coming out next month with this "Binary Univers" and of course published by DTS. After reading the reviews of his fans who are complaining that he dramatically change his style it was No doubt that it is because of my "Solaris" even the cover was similar. Then I decided I will not play games like that anymore and made my own DTS Entertainment. That is why you do not see any releases from DTS Entertainment anymore. Because that's me, I am DTS Entertainment and I am writing directly to the CEO of Xperi. So why it is related to this thread because I have all right to raise that issue. They think were new codec only for major production houses, OK, I will prove that my music development that is actually a basis of whole DTS Surround Sound awareness is more valuable than where manufacturing of software tools.
So then you think about DTS, don't think about the Xperi, think about me, it is even called differently.
 
You right identical, but not better it is the same 24bit/96k, they pretend that this a new superior codec and it is not it is just another gimmick without wide strategic marketing,

It's better because it allows for more speakers

more speakers always = better :)
 
This is a rather confusing thread about shunning DTSX. Anyway, DTSX might not be as good as Atmos for home, it still offers 3D audio. For really complex musics, panning specific instruments upwards can enhance the mix. DTSX also makes it really easy to encode channel-based 3D mixes for BD.
 
I think this seems more like a personal rant, rather than based on any technicalities from what I read here. I think in general from what I recollect, if this is the same Mr Jero, then his reputation precedes himself.
 
I have sort of a "Cliff's notes" understanding of these formats.
Dolby Atmos is a 7.1.4 system with 34 additional "object" channels that place content directly in spacial location.
The idea is the full system is installed and calibrated in a theater where the public can pay to listen to musical events prepared for and presented on this system.
Then there will be the "home version" that has the ability to translate the 7.1.4.34 program to an existing more traditional home theater if the full speaker array is not installed.

If someone actually produces some 7.1.4.34 content, you can hear it in its full glory in a Dolby Atmos calibrated theater. You can get a decent fold down in theory at home with what you have (5.1 and up).

One of the early premises of the system was that the home version would be able to learn incomplete or improper or non-traditional speaker arrays and use them to maximum effect to deliver the 7.1.4.34 program as well as possible or to deliver more standard 5.1 to the 'improper' speaker array in the best way possible. Sounds good in theory honestly. I'm not hearing this part in the marketing hype anymore.

DTS-X is a similar 7.1.4.34 array (a 7.1.4 foundation with object channels). They seem to be promoting the part about the home version working with 'improper' speaker arrays as found in the wild.
DTS-MA is simply a lossless encoding of 24 bit HD 5.1 or 7.1 into a 2 channel storage container. The decode is 1:1 with the original multichannel wav files.

I might have a couple of the numbers wrong. (Might have been 9.1.4.34 for example.) Most of the talk you see is about how to kludge it into a not full speaker array for the home version or getting really crude with that 'soundbar' garbage they sell at Worst Purchase.

The bottom line for anyone interested in 1:1 reproduction of a music mix:
Something mixed in 5.1 will be most 1:1 direct on a 5.1 system. Anything you do with more channels (for good or bad) is an alteration of how the original mix was made to be presented.
Something genuinely mixed in 7.1.4.34 will only be 1:1 direct on the full Atmos or DTS-X systems in a theater. Anything you do (with the best settings on proper official decoder equipment) will be a lesser approximation of how the original mix was made to be presented.

The only thing better than stereo is quad and the only thing better than that is 5.1 and the only thing better... More speakers are always better! :D 34 speakers in addition to a base 7.1.4 system?! Well yeah, bring it on!

Is anyone actually making discreet music mixes for such a system and then selling tickets to theaters for the listening event? A couple I think.
To answer the question as to weather or not you're missing anything. Only if something was actually mixed in Atmos or DTS-X. Most music mixes are still at most 5.1 and this is still sadly rare-ish.

The part about kludging for soundbars and other improper speaker setups is compelling for sure. Anything to get a more intentional mix to those that refuse to set up speakers or even buy real ones is a fine thing. Having theatrical events for music presentation sounds awesome to me! Getting the average listener interested in such a thing (in these days of mp3s and cheap earbuds) seems like a stretch but I'd love to be wrong.
 
I have sort of a "Cliff's notes" understanding of these formats.
Dolby Atmos is a 7.1.4 system with 34 additional "object" channels that place content directly in spacial location.
The idea is the full system is installed and calibrated in a theater where the public can pay to listen to musical events prepared for and presented on this system.
Then there will be the "home version" that has the ability to translate the 7.1.4.34 program to an existing more traditional home theater if the full speaker array is not installed.

If someone actually produces some 7.1.4.34 content, you can hear it in its full glory in a Dolby Atmos calibrated theater. You can get a decent fold down in theory at home with what you have (5.1 and up).

One of the early premises of the system was that the home version would be able to learn incomplete or improper or non-traditional speaker arrays and use them to maximum effect to deliver the 7.1.4.34 program as well as possible or to deliver more standard 5.1 to the 'improper' speaker array in the best way possible. Sounds good in theory honestly. I'm not hearing this part in the marketing hype anymore.

DTS-X is a similar 7.1.4.34 array (a 7.1.4 foundation with object channels). They seem to be promoting the part about the home version working with 'improper' speaker arrays as found in the wild.
DTS-MA is simply a lossless encoding of 24 bit HD 5.1 or 7.1 into a 2 channel storage container. The decode is 1:1 with the original multichannel wav files.

I might have a couple of the numbers wrong. (Might have been 9.1.4.34 for example.) Most of the talk you see is about how to kludge it into a not full speaker array for the home version or getting really crude with that 'soundbar' garbage they sell at Worst Purchase.

The bottom line for anyone interested in 1:1 reproduction of a music mix:
Something mixed in 5.1 will be most 1:1 direct on a 5.1 system. Anything you do with more channels (for good or bad) is an alteration of how the original mix was made to be presented.
Something genuinely mixed in 7.1.4.34 will only be 1:1 direct on the full Atmos or DTS-X systems in a theater. Anything you do (with the best settings on proper official decoder equipment) will be a lesser approximation of how the original mix was made to be presented.

The only thing better than stereo is quad and the only thing better than that is 5.1 and the only thing better... More speakers are always better! :D 34 speakers in addition to a base 7.1.4 system?! Well yeah, bring it on!

Is anyone actually making discreet music mixes for such a system and then selling tickets to theaters for the listening event? A couple I think.
To answer the question as to weather or not you're missing anything. Only if something was actually mixed in Atmos or DTS-X. Most music mixes are still at most 5.1 and this is still sadly rare-ish.

The part about kludging for soundbars and other improper speaker setups is compelling for sure. Anything to get a more intentional mix to those that refuse to set up speakers or even buy real ones is a fine thing. Having theatrical events for music presentation sounds awesome to me! Getting the average listener interested in such a thing (in these days of mp3s and cheap earbuds) seems like a stretch but I'd love to be wrong.
Wow. Nice presentation. I, of course, have no idea if you're correct, but it sounds good to me!
 
Back
Top