Dolby vs. DTS mastering on same disc

[tlake6659]

The Dolby Digital mastering on Muse the Resistance is so much more dynamic than the DTS mastering. Any other examples of more dynamic mastering via a different compression format on the same disc?

 

[unbound59]

I find the exact opposite with my movie collection. DTS is always crisper cleaner sounding than Dolby. I use Dolby for music because it’s a softer warmer sound.

 

[JohnN]

Latest Jethro Tull Thick As A Brick 5.1 & Steven Wilson non Mew stereo
Yamaha A2A amp with Yamaha and Sony players, I was surprised that I prefer the Dolby Digital over the DTS. The DTS really pushes the limits on the loud parts played really loud. I'm more comfortable with the Dolby Digital (nice).

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Personally, when it comes to playing/listening to lossy encoded music I prefer DTS. Perhaps it's because its permitted bit-rate (originally 1536kbps) is much higher than Dolby Digital (originally 448kbps. Now up-to 640kbps).

 

[JohnN]

Personally, when it comes to playing/listening to lossy encoded music I prefer DTS. Perhaps it's because its permitted bit-rate (originally 1536kbps) is much higher than Dolby Digital (originally 448kbps. Now up-to 640kbps).

I always say choose Tull DTS. Thick As A Brick surprised me, especially the stereo update.

 

[tlake6659]

I always say choose Tull DTS. Thick As A Brick surprised me, especially the stereo update.

Is it due to dialog normalization or is it actually more dynamic on thick as a brick?

 

[JohnN]

Is it due to dialog normalization or is it actually more dynamic on thick as a brick?

Thanks, never thought of that. Not more dynamic, much the same with DTS. Perhaps the normalization makes it more comfortable. I'm talking really loud playback.

 

[tlake6659]

Thanks, never thought of that. Not more dynamic, much the same with DTS. Perhaps the normalization makes it more comfortable. I'm talking really loud playback.

Yeah sometimes the volume is just reduced due to it and it's not actually more dynamic.

 

[Owen Smith]

Personally, when it comes to playing/listening to lossy encoded music I prefer DTS. Perhaps it's because its permitted bit-rate (originally 1536kbps) is much higher than Dolby Digital (originally 448kbps. Now up-to 640kbps).

The Dolby Digital codec itself is indeed limited to 640kbps max and always was, even when encoded on 35mm film prints (2 x 320kbps between sprocket holes on both sides of the film, never actually used). But on DVD-Video DD is limited to 448kbps and I doubt that has changed because if it did there are bound to be a load of players in the field that can't handle it.

 

[JediJoker]

But on DVD-Video DD is limited to 448kbps...

Nevertheless, there are releases that violate this spec, namely the Pink Floyd Immersion sets. The DVDs contain both 448 and 640kbps DD streams.

 

[Owen Smith]

Nevertheless, there are releases that violate this spec, namely the Pink Floyd Immersion sets. The DVDs contain both 448 and 640kbps DD streams.

Presumably the intention is if your player can't handle 640kbps you play the other one. But it would have been better, and an entirely in spec disc, to have DD 448kbps and DTS on the DVDs. More format silliness from Pink Floyd.

 

[atrocity]

Presumably the intention is if your player can't handle 640kbps you play the other one. But it would have been better, and an entirely in spec disc, to have DD 448kbps and DTS on the DVDs. More format silliness from Pink Floyd.

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere that Guthrie is convinced that DTS sounds bad.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere that Guthrie is convinced that DTS sounds bad.

Lol... Anybody who managed to get a copy of the Division Bell DVD will confirm how much better the lossy DTS audio stream sounds compared to the lossy Dolby Digital audio stream...

 

[Owen Smith]

I think it's been mentioned elsewhere that Guthrie is convinced that DTS sounds bad.

Another thing he's wrong about then in addition to his style of doing 5.1 mixes. At least there's consistency here, I disagree with everything Guthrie says and does.

EDIT: and if Guthrie thinks DTS sounds bad, how can I trust anything else he says about sound quality?

 

[mandrix]

IMO DTS can sound pretty darn good. I'm always impressed with the overall sound from Rob Reed's projects in particular.

The Ringmaster, Chimpan A, Cursus 123, Cyan, etc etc all sound great to me.
Speaking of which, wonder what he's got coming up these days? Rob if you're out there lurking, would really like to hear another Chimpan A project!

 

[Owen Smith]

IMO DTS can sound pretty darn good. I'm always impressed with the overall sound from Rob Reed's projects in particular.

Agreed, full rate DTS can sound excellent. I have some DVDs with great sounding DTS tracks.

 

[ssully]

There's no particular technical reason why one should sound better than another. They are different codecs and they allocate bits differently to achieve much the same effect. But of course it's possible to screw anything up. Certainly I own surround mixes in either that sound great.

It is also somewhat difficult to compare them fairly at home. This document remains the best I know of to explain why.

The whole 'Dullby' thing is a stupid myth

 

[mandrix]

I've read how the two codecs work. Also, if someone likes AC3 over DTS then good for them, I have zero reason nor inclination to argue about it with anyone or any desire to change anyone's mind.

I did not come into this world with a bias toward or against any codec; but thousands of hours of listening have given me a preference for DTS over AC3 overall.

It's been argued up and down the internet ad nauseam. People are going to have their preferences.

 

[Owen Smith]

There's no particular technical reason why one should sound better than another

Yes there is. They are both lossy codecs, and DD on DVD runs at a third the bit rate of full rate DTS on DVD. All other things being equal (like how well the codecs work), the lossy codec running at 3 times the bit rate will sound better. Try a 100kbps MP3 versus a 300kbps MP3 for a similar exercise.

I'll grant you we don't know if all other things are equal. And beyond a certain bit rate lossy codecs usually sound as good as lossless, but I don't believe we're anywhere close to that with DD at 448kbps. I'd argue that with full rate DTS on DVD we are close to or at that point of very limited further gains.

 

[mandrix]

Please allow me to stray a little from the immediate topic here if you will, as it concerns Dolby.

I've been trying to figure something out here. Dolby has trademarked "MLP Lossless". So they state. But I've never read anywhere that Meridian ever sold or gave up the rights to MLP, or "Meridian Lossless Packing" that they invented. Dolby has made TrueHD synonymous with MLP and have stated so.

So, uh, "wot's the deal"?