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