About Audio Comments On Reviews

I Noticed than in all of your dvd reviews you only test and comment the Dolby Digital Track even on discs that include Both DTS and Dolby. Now...the Standard Sound Type used for audio on DVD's is D.Digital. But every amplifier released from 1999 till today, has a DTS Decoder Built-In...so i dont see the reason reviewing only the dolby track, if a guy has the ability to hear D.Digital in 5.1 he also has the chance to hear it in DTS, And sometimes with better results. There are films like the "Master And Commander" that are not sounding quite as good as the dts track, or the mummy returns which sux in dolby.

Josh,

Because I've been reviewing classical music, hi-fi, and sound for the past thirty-five years, I've grown accustomed to listening to music with my eyes closed (or, ideally, at night in a darkened room). I believe one can concentrate better on sound alone if there are no distractions whatsoever.

An audiophile friend once told me that shining a light on a speaker in a dark room could change its audio quality. That's carrying things too far, but lessening the distractions is definitely a plus when listening to sound alone.

S Coaster,

In 2000 the the DTS feature was on more costly models than my $1,000 Denon receiver. Since the receiver works perfectly well at the moment, I'm not about to replace it for your personal benefit. However, if you'd like to contribute a little something to the cause, I would gladly give you my address. Checks are perfectly acceptable.

Seriously, it looks like you are looking for someone to confirm your own positive opinion about DTS over DD (I know you don't simply want to argue). As I said, I can't make a case one way or the other because I've never heard the difference with my own ears and I've never read any review in any legitimate audiophile magazine that could make a case for one format "sounding" better than the other. (I might add, technical specs often mean little when it comes to actual listening preferences. People who love tube amps swear by them, even though tubes have distortion measurements a thousand times highter than solid-state units).

Anyway, this whole DTS vs. DD thing reminds me of the MAC vs. PC debates, or the Ferrari vs. Porsche clashes, or the blue is a better color than green arguments. There are no definitive answers to these subjective matters. If you like DTS, I am more than happy for you. But I can't afford the money or the time for comparisons to go out and buy a new amp when there is no good reason in my case for the change (as I said, two of my three studios don't issue anything in DTS, and Fox only issues occasional things in DTS. So what's the point?).

John

Ideally, I think you'd want to watch the movie twice, in each format, as Tim mentioned. However, I don't necessarily think it's required. I think you could watch a specific chapter on the disc, that might be aurally interesting, or exciting in each format, and use that as a base comparison.

Query:

I've actually tried what I've mentioned above, but went a step further, and turned the TV off, giving my brain only audio information to process. However, I felt I had lost so much information without the visual, that it was too hard for me to concentrate on the audio. And, like John, I couldn' come up with a discernable victor. So, onto the question. Does the loss of visual information, in fact, make it more difficult for us to perceive aural information, in a movie, or theatrical context, or setting?

No DTS on the Amplifier? a 2000 model? You where ripped off!
As for the difference i suggest you compare the opening "fog ship" scene in "master and commander" where the ship fires from the fog and hits the other ship in both dolby and dts.
Dolby Digital can reach a maximum of 960kbps of audio (even the newer versions like ex are just re-worked D.D.)
Dts Can reach a maximum of 1.5Mbps (1500kbps) on constant bitrate.
Yes, volume is louder, but you also have better dynamic ranges from silence to loud scenes...and even though at those heights of quality..you can distnguish crispness and clarity on the dialog and rear channels.
Lots of DD Dvds even when running on low volume...are clipping the center channel when a character shouts... this never happens with Dts.
I truly say to you, evry model at least here in europe, released after 1999 of every major brand....has a dts decoder.

- EXTERNAL LINK - <---samples of DTS music for download, simple WAV files...inaudible on most computers (all you will hear is pink noise) Burn'em on a cd and play them on your DVD player which is hooked up with a DTS capable Decoder.
They had some good classical Samples too but i cant seem to find them

Ranjan,

It's called "Grad School Sux". :p

Eddie

--Well, at least you watch them once. I just watch their trailers.--

Eddie that is why you have not been writing reviews lately:). Too busy watching trailers. Looked to me that Apollo 13 review was a trailer too:)

--Ranjan8)

Sometimes I like to buy the trailer's on audio CD and listen to them in the car, it's a real time saver.

Tim,

You don't watch movies twice?

Well, at least you watch them once. I just watch their trailers.

Eddie

John is right about the only subtle difference between the two is volume. I prefer DTS because it does pump out more volume and I need this because, as I grow older, I’m becoming deafer. I’m sure it’s due to many years of blasting a guitar amplifier at the back of my head, so DTS works better for me. Unfortunately, most DVDs only support DD 5.1, which is basically the universal standard.

I think the other issue to why we don’t always make measurable comparisons in our reviews is simply because of lack of TIME. As much as I’ve had people point fingers at me about not listening to audio commentaries or not noticing some stupid “Easter Egg” I simply don’t have the time to watch the film in DTS and then watch it again in DD. Take any average DVD these days with plenty of goodies and you need to spend over six hours or more just catching everything they have to offer. I have a busy life and simply don’t have time to over analyze every little detail on a DVD. We do take the effort to point out the extras, video and sound here, but I would rather think our main emphasis is to review the film itself. Well, at least for me, that’s what I concentrate on because it’s about all I have time for and it isn’t like any of us are getting paid big bucks to do it.

Tim :)

Geez, I don't think anyone's ever "awaited" my comments before. I'd better respond.

I only review the Dolby Digital tracks for several reasons: (1) They are the only tracks on the DVDs I review from two of the major studios I handle: Warner Bros. and Buena Vista. (2) They are the primary tracks used in most motion-picture theaters. And (3) my receiver, a Denon made in 2000, does not play DTS. OK, I suppose that last one is the killer.

More important, (4) my trying to compare the two tracks would inevitably result in ambiguity at best. I've heard the two tracks compared side-by-side in other systems and could still not decide which one I liked best. I know some people, our own Tim Raynor, for instance, love DTS 5.1 more than DD 5.1 and others vice versa. Fair enough. But for me, the two formats are simply different without one of them being superior to the other.

Besides, the differences between them are often ones of loudness, volume gain at certain points in the frequency spectrum, which can cause some listeners to prefer one format over the other. I don't need the added headache of trying to listen and compare. Instead, I leave that to the "experts" at other DVD sites who are omnipotent enough to tell their readers what to think.

John

Editorial:

Original comment > "or the mummy returns which sux in dolby."

Revised comment > "or the mummy returns which sux period."

Gimme a break man...its not the greatest Movie ever made...i know that...just mentioned it to make an example...ok i change it to Gladiator....and Jurassic Park 1.

Hahaha, I know dude I was just jokin'. But still, that movie was horrible you have to admit.

That CG scorpion king towards the end was disgusting....all CGI Scenes where bad...even thought i bought the disc, at the time i only had 3-4 dvds and i added them to my collection...and i dont know how to remove it from my highest rated dvd;s. Anyway...it was a bad sequel.

Yeah I've been liquidating my older DVDs too. The ones I bought just because they were new and had special effects. I've come to hate them now. Anyways, we're way off topic, just await John's comments to your original message. I know I will.

John,


I guess I need to keep my eyes open, and watch where I'm going... I walked right into that one!! :D Oh well. I just meant in the context of evaluating the quality, or comparison of the quality between a DD 5.1 track, and DTS. Yes, listening to a movie might get boring after a while. ;). I think you're right though... movies like "Wing Commander" might be better off not watched altogether. I was going to say that it might fit into your catagory of "listening" to the movie, but the dialogue was so horrible, that it doesn't even merit that!... though, I really only went to that movie for the "Episode 1" trailer.;)


- Josh

Josh,

You got suckered twice with "Wing Commander". One, you saw that movie. Two, you saw a cool trailer for a movie that people wound up hating. :D

Eddie

Eddie,

Granted, it was evident that "Wing Commander" was going to suck major eggs, but how could any of us have known that "Episode 1" was going to suck?! Maybe we should have "used the Force"? ;). Besides, I've never attempted to hide my geek streak! "The geek is strong with me"! ;)

C'mon now Eddie, we all know the geek within you is just crying to get out! Don't fight it man! Give in to the dark side! We know that when you're not reviewing, you're competing with Tim to see whom can recite more Star Wars lines verbatim! :D

At least now we're prepared for the possibility of a huge rotten egg awaiting us on May 19th. Not likely, since we were so desensitized after Episode 1 hitting such a low with "Jar-Jar Binks".


- Josh :D

Actually, I didn't mind "Episode 1" that much. On the other hand, "Episode 2" was terrible--I really don't understand its appeal to so many people.

Episode II was OK. I liked the Yoda 'saber fight'. The Jango Fet/Obi-wan asteroid fight was/is cool, especially the CG, and audio. I liked the clone vs. the droid fights, with the laser lights bouncing off of the dust cloud from the giant ship hitting the ground. Then there's the fact that it was shot entirely digitally. I like the crisp clear look to Episode II.

But then... we also have the regrettable whiney Anikin "I slaughtered all the Sand People" speech. Followed immediately by "Amidala" comforting him for slaughtering them. Ugh.

Episode II has it's ups and downs. It's not the greatest, but it's not completely lost.


- Josh

when hayden christensen said, "well, i should be" like a petulant 3-year-old, i burst out laughing and almost spilled soda on the person sitting in front of me.

THERE'S NO CRYING IN STAR WARS!!

Crying no, but alien monsters that like to rip girls' clothes off, yes.

About episode II's Look, i think digital is good, but not that good yet. Like John said in the review of sincity...the flat look is not a plus for me, i like and i want to use new technologies my self,but to waste the all-mighty 35mm film for some H/Drive which look less good because its cheaper....nah.
Check out the mistakes in Episode II, No shadows or reflections in some scenes...blured Backrounds...anti-aliazed edges on actors infront of blue screens, characters like Anakin passing right through the 3D Model of the entrance...shadows over other characters...
At least if you are going to shoot in digital...and have better chances for post-production fixes..try to make it right. Even hardcore StarWars fans admited that Episode 1 & 2 are full of production mistakes...

it depends. some movies have such great sound designs that i turn off my tv just to enjoy the audio space. amazing...

Josh,

I have to admit I very seldom watch a movie with my eyes closed, but on some occasions the film probably would look better that way. Of course, there are some movies that just force your eyes to close. I wish I had kept my eyes AND ears closed for "Freddy Got Fingered."


No, I was only referring to music listening and to minimizing distractions.

John

Regardless of what Star Wars is or isn't to each and every differing opinion in the world, in defense of Lucas, if he hadn't taken the film industry in the digital direction, quite honestly, I don't think anyone else would have had the finances, or the guts to do it now, if ever. So whether or not the first attempt at it was perfect the first time around, doesn't matter. The fact that we've started down that road, should be the point.



- Josh

Im sorry, but buying a home cinema,piece by piece (not that all-in-one stuff you find in cerial boxes) while
you edit stuff for audio magazines and reviewing Classical music for all this years(which clearly shows a true audiophile), and ending up buying a Denon Amplifier which doesnt do Dts sounds kind of dumb, Its like buying a Ferarri with a porche machine or vise versa :)
I Just made the Suggestion, and you ignited like a firework on the 4th of july!
I Dont know john, for me buying something Like an entertainment System that i look forward to use for hours and hours, giving away $1000 and getting something that actually laggs on my field (audio) would just be an April Fool's Joke.

And no, your address is not required, as John hammond said in that POP CORN Movie Jurassic Park:
"I dont blame people for their mistakes, but i do ask them to pay for them"

S_Coaster,

Most of us bought Dolby Digital 5.1 receivers as they were becoming affordable. As recently as 2000/2001, Dolby Digital 5.1 receivers were fairly expensive.

It is of little value for us to do DD vs. DTS comparisons for the following reasons:

1) Dolby Digital is still the mandated-by-law standard for audio for the forseeable future, and Dolby Digital can be as little as 1.0 (no government has upped the minimum standard to DD 5.1 EX, DD Pro-Logic II, or DTS 5.1 ES/6.1 ES).

2) The vast majority of the market still watches movies with sound from TV speakers. Grandma doesn't know what DD 5.1 is, much less what DTS 6.1 ES is.

3) DTS mixes tend to be a few decibels louder than their DD counterparts. When you adjust them to the same volumes, all but about 5% of the population can't tell the difference.

4) Calling John "dumb" for not buying DTS just shows how ignorant YOU are for attacking him for being an audiophile lacking in proper equipment. There are audiophiles out there who swear by two-channel sound, and they are more expert at audio technology than plenty of people out there with DD Pro-Logic II/DTS 6.1 ES receivers.

Eddie

S_Coaster,

Adding to John’s comments . . .

I think the other thing you have to consider is all of us at DVD town have different systems and they may easily inflect different tones and dynamics when compared to one another. Eddie might have a better sound system than I might, or I might have something better than John or Justin and so on.

When we write our comments on audio in the review, they are based entirely on what we hear out of our own system. Granted, what I hear out of my system may not sound as good as some high-tech Bose system but it sure as hell sounds better than some Radio Shack Realistic system. Basically, our audio reviews are no guarantee that what we hear on our home theatres is what YOU are going to hear, but we are guessing that it will be close enough for you to make your own guess that it will sound good for you. As it is now days, it’s amazing how good a cheap little $200 system can sound, so what are we to do? After all, looking at it in the most technical way, we would need to purchase every system available to mankind, test each one and compare each ones capabilities on DD 5.1 and DTS, no? Again, I don’t have the time or the money. All of us at DVD Town write these reviews for the pure enjoyment of “movies” and simply are not paid to do it nor are we millionaires that can afford to purchase every sound system out there to make DD and DTS comparisons. In fact, I don’t know anyone or any site out there that could do that, and if there is they’re full of s**t.

However, if you feel there is better dynamics and balance between the two sound types, then please feel free to point it out at anytime and be sure to mention the type of system you are using. Perhaps you could make suggestions for others and possibly prove your points by telling us which systems handle audio better than others. Keep in mind, more expensive does not always mean better when it comes to anything that produces DTS. I have a friend who recently got an expensive Sony 6.1 system that I really didn’t find that impressive; however, my father has a cheaper $300 Sony system that could peel paint off his freaking walls! Go figure?

Keep in mind; I do agree with you that I feel DTS has a smaller edge over DD. As far as better dynamics go . . . eh, that’s a tough call. Maybe it’s possible, but what it really boils down to is what your own ears hear and not what some technical diagram says. Than again, if it sounds good enough for you, or anyone to enjoy, is it really that important to overindulge how technical the sound really is?

Tim (no offense intended, just chatting) ;)

1st of all, i think mr.Puccio is the best reviewer of the site, he does the best reviews, and has a thing or two to say at the end of each which really pin-point some essentials for any viewer. As for his "Audiophile" title, no one doubted it, just check the guys resume.
What im trying to say is that for a person that knows that much of audio/electronics buying smt like the part mentioned above is strange.
2nd. Are you a lawyer? Im sure he can speak by himself.
3rd. I Know that expensive doesnt mean allways better, but by saying that you enforce my view that mr.John was ripped off, check out my system, is quite low..its not an all-in-one package...but it does its job. As For pinPointing the differences i gave an example with "Master & Commander" on a post above.
Even a Musical Audiophile can appreciate the fact that DVD-Audio discs are running on DTS, and that beyond the multichannel music, there is some good quality on them.

Eddie,

As intrusive into our lives as governments have been getting lately, I'm pretty sure they don't mandate DVD standards. Such standards are typically supplied by industry groups.

As for DTS vs. DD, I tend to go with DTS when it's available. However, I don't really hear much of a difference. Of course, I'm a pariah in the audiophile community, I think CDs sound metric shitloads better than vinyl.

C Coaster,

Sorry for sounding overreactive. I was just trying to rationally explain my reasons for not doing DD vs. DTS comparisons.

Also, sorry if I made any suggestion of my being an audiophile. I'm certainly not. I don't have the money for that. I simply have a very good two-channel stereo system in my living room and a very good multichannel system in my home theater room.

I chose the Denon receiver because at the time, five years ago, DTS was almost unheard of in home theater, it was an expense add-on, and the Denon was the very best-sounding receiver I auditioned for the money. I have never regretted the decision, although if I were buying a receiver today, yes, of course, it would have DTS built in, even if I hardly ever used DTS.

John

Olen,

Um, Dolby Digital IS the mandated-by-law standard for digital media in the U.S. This is why HD cable and satellite feeds have DD signals (again, anywhere between DD 1.0 to DD 5.1).

Eddie

Wow, all this controversy over something fairly simple, and subjective. Must be the spring bug... Though, "subjective" subjects (ha ha) are usually what get people around town steamed.

John,

I know what you mean about listening to music with your eyes closed. However, I think listening to music with your eyes closed, and listening to a movie with your eyes closed are too different to compare. At least it is for me. I like listening to music in a dark room as well, but a movie with no visual information is such a strange experience, and even though I know there's no logical reasoning to it, the loss of the visual makes me "feel" like there's audio information missing. It's hard to explain, and I'm probably not doing a very good job of it, but, there you have it.

- Josh ;)

Audio comments blow dog biscuits! :p

Tim :D

Hasn't anyone yet realised that Dolby Digital is a 11 to 1 compression where as dts is only 5 to 1...no wonder anyone who cares about sound can instantly hear the differnce in favour of dts. Take films like Panic Room ( the gas bottle scene and the geneal ambience os sound in that big house) Gladiator (the flying arrows in the opening forest battle) or an early battle scene in Master and Commandar that isreputed in reach in the bass lower that 20hz. The sound of dts has a 'grip' and 'authority' that very few DD5/1 discs have. Many DD5/1 discs give me the desire - which I have resisted so far-(an audio trick since the start of 16 bit CDs) of 'greening the edge of the discs with an emerald green waterbased marking pen. It gets rid of "digititis and gives a smooth analogue sound' ). Think it can't work... I had a copy of Liar, Liar (the dvd) which would in one scene keep juming out of picture and sound synch. I gave it the green treatment...it has never played up again!
Terry :D

As an avid reader and contributor to audiophile magazines like "Stereophile," "The Absolute Sound," "International Audio Review," and the "$ensible Sound" for over thirty years, I have heard every goofy claim possible about how to improve the sound of a system. So far, not one of the "green marker" type claims has held up to objective technical tests or subjective listening comparisons; not in the magazines I mentioned nor in the more mainstream press like "Stereo Review" or "Sound & Vision."

Just to let you know: Whether they be claims or counterclaims, if they sound too good to be true, take them with a grain of salt.

For example, if the green marking around the edge of a disc really did work, don't you think after two decades of CDs that every CD manufacturer in the world would be edging their discs with green ink? But not even the high-end audiophile record companies like Mobile Fidelity gold or JVC XRCD puts any stock in that long-since discredited notion.

Likewise, if DTS really were as vastly superior to Dolby Digital as a few die-hard supportors claim, wouldn't every videophile magazine in the world be advancing its cause, and wouldn't every manufacturer be scrambling to use it? It hasn't happened. Why? Because most discerning listeners realize that "differences" in sound in and of them themselves are not always "improvements." A louder bass doesn't equal a better bass. Bass below 20 hz doesn't exist on almost any film soundtrack (no matter what people "think" they hear). And neither DTS nor DD compression systems can match the sound of a good CD or a good, well-mastered SACD.

John

No arguements here, Louder DOES NOT mean better. But in some films, i noticed that the dts track offers more ambient sound to the rear, and in contrast with the D.D.Track the center channel is not clipping when people shout at any volume.
Ofcourse, both formats when used with the right accoustics sound fantastic. As for SACD its encoding method is superior to dts (DVD-A) I Only own one Multichannel Disc and its a dvd-a disc. Sounds great if u ask me. But to be honest i never sampled a SACD in proper conditions...i tried it in a test booth that was noisy with people talking all over the place 1 year ago, and i couldnt give weight to quality etc etc.
When interested in buying an A/V Receiver, what specifications one must look out for? Not just for great movie sound, but music too. Some 75% Of the a/v amps outhere (including my old rx-v420) are great with movies and have great dsp's but suck in music. i.e. The bass with movies sounds great and equally adjusted with the midtones and high-frequencies, with music its delayed and its boomy instead of immediate.

S_Coaster,

Some of the differences that you mentioned have to do with the way that DD and DTS tracks--for the same movies!--are mastered differently. Therefore, in those instances, compression rates aren't really a factor. Rather, the DD and DTS tracks are actually entirely different beasts.

Eddie