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