DTS vs. Dolby Digital. The subwoofer.
|
| DTS vs. Dolby Digital Over the last few months I have expanded my stereo system to get 5.1, and it is a great pleasure. Watching movies is better for the whole family, and more of a shared experience, an unexpected benefit. The final link in place was a sub. I don't think the brand matters here. DTS is really great. I connect the sub to the line-level 0.1 receiver output. With the sub "level" control set at 12 o'clock, the sub sounds exactly like a natural and balanced long downward extension of the whole system, in the whole room. Low frequency extension shakes and surprises you. It is part of the experience. Dolby Digital, with same DVD, set-up and settings everywhere, is really bad. A lot of detail is missing from all 5 channels, especially the surrounds. But the big issue is the sub. Dolby Digital gives continuous high levels of pointless bass. It is tiring, and removes the drama from explosions and all that, because you have been blasted with bass all the way through, anyway. Anything with a bass guitar is a complete pain, like "megabass" stuff on a cheap Walkman. Is it the sub? No, it is the same sub. Same connection. Same settings. Is it the receiver? Well, I can turn down the LFE channel 6 dB and Dolby Digital is still far too loud out of the sub. And the peaks still come as no surprise. For example there is a great thunderstorm in The Bourne Identity (good movie). It is startling in DTS, just more noise in Dolby Digital. Is it the processor in the receiver? If I turn off the sub and direct the LFE channel to the main speakers the problem is not there, or not as much. Maybe the processor in the receiver has got it all wrong? But it is an OK make, and has the Dolby double-D badge. Is it the source? All DVDs with DD and DTS give pretty much the same result, so this seems unlikely. And not all recording engineers are addicted to banging their heads against walls. If they were, why would they do it only in DD? Has Dolby advised recorders to put 10 dB extra sound pressure level in LFE for some reason? I have one 5.0 DVD-audio disk. DTS does what it says on the tin. DD gives a 0.1 output anyway. And it is far too loud. Does this mean the processor is at fault? I have read up what Dolby and DTS each have to say about their two competing systems. I greatly prefer DTS sound. Dolby rubbishes DTS but to me Dolby's arguments are as bad as their sound. At least on my system....
From Dolby about LFE and subs:-
"The LFE channel carries additional bass information to supplement the bass information in the main channels. The signal in the LFE channel is calibrated during soundtrack production to be able to contribute 10 dB higher SPL than the same bass signal from any one of the screen (front) channels."Does anyone think this means that the same bass should should be increased 10 dB (more than eight times louder) through the LFE channel than any single channel? That is absurd and cannot be what they mean. But then "supplement" is the wrong word. And they don't mean "signal in the main channel" they mean "bandwidth" or "capacity". Maybe someone takes them at their word, and puts + 10 dB on the LFE signal just to blast the listener? Some of my DVDs sound just like this. By the way, "High Level Description" it is not. "Confused ramble" would be more like it. Where I live we get mostly specific region 2 DVDs, and DTS is usually sacrificed for dubbed DD 5.1 channels. You have to look hard to find a DTS disk for rent or sale. My main question. Which component is at fault? I only have one system with one of each component, so I can't experiment. I can't find anything about this anywhere, so maybe it's my system, not the recordings. Does anyone else experience a massive difference in sub output between DTS and Dolby Digital? John Allen This message is posted on both Home Audio, Speakers and Home Theater. |
|
timn8ter | I like DTS better also. The sound coming from each channel appears more discrete. The bass seems better also, not exaggerated as it is sometimes in DD. I haven't experienced the level of pointless bass you're describing. Have you ever run test tones through your system? The easiest and most inexpensive method is to pick up a SPL meter from Radio Shack. An analog meter will work fine. Personally I prefer the digital one, only because it's easier to read. Test tones can be had at no cost, downloaded from the Internet. Play the test tones and record the results, taking readings at all the various listening positions. All rooms will have null points and reflections. I enjoyed reading F.E. Toole's paper titled "Getting the Bass Right" which can be found on Harman's web site. Placement of the sub is a big factor but it's almost a neccessity to use a good parametric equalizer to get it right. If you'd like more info please let me know. |
|
Derek | John, I have heard completely different bass levels between DD and DTS. I simply chalked it up to the mix, get on my knees and turned my sub down. I keep hearing that DTS sounds better because they use less compression but I can't realy prove it because I have found that the mixes are different. Objective reviews in mags like Sound and Vision weren't definative either. Timn8ter, what tones are you refering to? Anything John plays will only be good for that source unless he can encode a DTS steam. I think John need a DTS test disk. I have AVIA and it does not have it. Video Essentials doesn't have DTS either. I haven't tried these but they say they do. http://avconvert.com/quad/test.html http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/media/testm/dvd-pro.html http://www.burosch.de/deutsch/Professional-DVD-English.php3 http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ReviewID=1124 P.S. If you buy an SPL meter, use laptop and this (http://audio.rightmark.org/) software to test your system. Hope this helps. |
|
| Tim and Derek, Many thanks. I live thousands of miles from a Radio Shack but I will investigate local SPL meters. All my subjective tests confirm the tiring bass on DD compared with DTS. I do like low bass, just not all the time. Yes, I would like to get hold of a DVD test disk. The JVC link looks like the spec of a good one. I have a Denon stereo test disk and I think it is only a matter of time before a home theater test disk is available retail. I have just burned an ordinary CD with various 5.1 mutichannel audio tracks from a Swedish radio web site. Some have the same content in DTS and in DD so you can compare and there is no contest. Quite a lot of the demos are in English. They claim to broadcast in mutichannel, too. How do they do that? Here is the link. The car chase and Banff demo are good. The Firebird in DTS and DD is cool a perfect example of DD's over-the-top LFE channel. http://www.sr.se/multikanal/english/e_index.stm |
|
timn8ter | Whoa, what happened to my post. I was attempting to answer Derek's question. Based on the lack of evidence for a huge sound difference between DD and DTS it seems logical to investigate the subwoofer itself. Not that there's anything wrong with the sub but low frequencies are impacted in a huge way by the room. Even if this isn't the problem it's still good practice to take the measurements and work with placement, gain and EQ of subs. |
|
| I have had posts go wrong too. My Denon stereo test CD has frequency sweeps and test tones with equal SPL at different frequencies. If I had something like that for DTS vs DVD it would help. The Swedish Radio files are good, this is the link again: Multichannel SR 5.1. The multichannel check (bottom of the web page) gives you clear speech with "My voice is heard coming from the __ channel" (but in Swedish, a lot of the rest is in English). Speech is always a good test of sound reproduction because our brains are tuned into it. But voice never needs an LFE channel. Even the deepest male voice has no part going below about 65 Hz, and bookshelf speakers will do that. What I find after more listening is that the exaggerated bass in DD is there with the receiver set to give all 5 channels full-range and with the sub on. The voice in the channel identification and level test sounds like an monster from a sci-fi movie. The bass in those voice recordings is still a bit exaggerated in DTS. With speakers set to small on the receiver and sub on, DD and DTS are both a bit boomy but about the same extent (the DTS is much clearer higher up though). Sub off and low frequencies sent to the L and R main channels is by far the best choice for voice. And then you hear the extra DTS clarity, no question. So it would look like my sub level is set too high. But on music and special effects the DTS with speakers set large is excellent, the DD ridiculous and so bass heavy. I now watch DD movies with a 6dB cut on DD compared to DTS. If the exaggerated bass is a result of bad sub placement, Tim, shouldn't be the same with DD and DTS? As regards Derek's comment "I keep hearing that DTS sounds better because they use less compression but I can't realy prove it". Well I can hear it. Consistently. On everything. It is striking improvement in clarity on every channel. From spoken voice to big orchestra or rock. Compare Swedish Radio's DTS and DD Stravinsky Firebird 1 clips - the first few seconds are enough to prove the point. For example also a nice little tambourine comes in at about 3 minutes on DTS. If you listen very hard on DD it sounds like someone's rustling aluminium foil somewhere. Quietly. You could write tons of examples on just those two clips. As to why, well there is the superior sampling frequency and the method of coding, see Brief History and Technical Overview. Then again it is clear if you download the Swedish Radio files that the DTS .wav files are twice the size of the DD files. I conclude that if you like good sound reproduction you will choose DTS every time. Dolby's business is compression, always has been since tape cassettes. I suppose it is a marketing decision. Leave off one DTS track and you can get the whole movie in two more languages in DD, or with a whole load of add-ons. Tim, I will try to get an SPL meter, check it out, and report back. The sub is near a corner (about 9" clearance both walls) at the moment and I will move it round a bit but there are family and space considerations in which I am sure I am not alone. But original question remains. Does anyone else hear, or measure, this huge difference in bass between the DTS and DD? Thanks for your comments, guys, I really appreciate that. No-one has yet responded to my same post under Home Theater. I guess this is an audio issue. But it's funny how much good sound makes or breaks the movie, even if you're not into technicalities. Someone should tell 'em! All the best. |
|
timn8ter | If you like you could read these threads. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147072&highlight=dts http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147355&highlight=dts http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148017&highlight=dts |
|
| Thanks. I am new to all this and see from those links it is a big issue. Nothing there about bass or LFE differences, though, my original question. I could easily tell DD 5.1 from DTS on any of the disks I have, in a blind test, and with the sub switched off. My player and receiver have 96 kHz/24 bit DACs, and this is given next to DTS on some DVD-audio disks and on the Swedish Radio files. What is meant on that forum by "full bitrate DTS"? I remember the 44 kHz sampling frequency limit of CDs being an issue with the analogue people (I am still one at heart). But I have eventually come round to thinking there isn't much missing from good CDs. So I decided against getting a SACD player. DVD-audio in DTS is so good it makes me wonder if this was right. I do think Sony and Philips must take us all for fools in pushing SACD; they agreed in 1983 that CDs gave "perfect sound that lasts forever" and are now flogging SACDs made from 1960s analogue master tapes. In the end, sound is analogue, and even the consumer electronics giants must know that. Speakers are certainly analogue devices. Must curb tendency to rant. Thanks again. |
|
Derek | John, I created the CD and ran some tests. In the end I found that the subwoofer-out of my receiver is 4db lower on the DTS track compared to the DD track. I had to normalize the measuremnts the results because the DTS track was 2 db quieter (a 6db total differnce for the sub). The spectrum analysis of the tracks are the same. I looked at the left front and the center channels. With the sub disconnected (not turned off by the receiver) and correcting for level, they look and sound the same. I conclude from these measurments that the difference aside from absolute level is the difference in sub level. It's probably a difference in the spec for DTS and DD. You would think that the mixing engineers would compensate for this but it appears they leave the DD at full output to make the tracks sound more thrilling... Maybe this doesn't work for music. I used and old Philips 5 MHz oscilloscope, SpectralRTA sofware on an IBM T20 Laptop, An Asus A7N8X motherboard (that encodes DD in real-time), a Samsung 52,24,52,16 CD-R DVD Combo drive, the Denon 1801 receiver, a Philips 724S DVD player and a 15 year old Maganvox 460 CD player with digital out. The Denon did all of the decoding. The computer and the Magnavox produced garbage out of thier analog AND digital outputs. Hope this helps. |
|
timn8ter | Bit rate refers to the data transfer rate and is usually measured in kilobits (Kb). Full bit rate is the highest data transfer rate that can be handled by whatever technology you're running on which can also translate into the least amount of compression that can be used. In case you haven't had enough to read here's another link. http://www.dvdangle.com/articles/dvd_101/102501.html DD uses a higher compression rate than DTS which is generally accepted as being the reason for the better sound quality. As you've been discovering it's a little more involved than that. |
|
| Derek, Well thank you for that. I would guess that the 6 total dB difference for the sub is about what I hear, too, on my system. But it is not just those Swedish Radio clips, it is everything. Maybe I haven't made enough DD/DTS comparisons yet, but I do not yet know of an exception to this thumping bass on DD when the controls are just right for DTS. That sounds like fun set of measurements. The DTS web site flags the Swedish Radio clips, so I guess there aren't so many around. Tim, Thank you, too. I see now. It is kb per second, kbps. Full rate DD is 448 kbps. Half rate DTS is 754 kbps. I do not know which I have been listening to. I am learning some things here. |
|
Derek | Yeah, I would imagine DTS would sound better. They seem to be a little more concerned with audio quality and they do use a higher bit rate. This high rate and additional licence fee explains why DVD producers aren't using it as much. It's all about sales. I will have to get my hands on DTS test DVD with calibrated levels and do some tests though. Now I have a new project. Thanks |
|
matt McCann | I have heard a similar bass difference on both mine and my friends systems. Try Gladiator which has both DD and DTS. The DTS has much less bass coming from the sub and much clearer audio overall.. Also try Terminator 2 which also features both audio options. DTS, in my opinion, based soley off what i can hear sounds better every time over Dolby Digital. |
|
Ryan Johnston | I have tested both sounds (DTS and DD) and i find that DTS blows DD out of the water. The sound is just way more involved in the movies i watch! I can make out nosies i have never heard before with DTS, then that i would with Dolby |
|
John Allen | Now I find the bass-heavy DD effect goes away when the sub is connected to the speaker output. But DTS still scores higher for sound quality in every way. I wonder if DD is doubling the bass to the dedicated ".1" LFE channel by giving it the low frequencies from the main channels, too, in order to try to compensate for small main speakers? Or just to blow the socks off customers in brief showroom demos? Back to using the "Sub out" line output, I get the impression DTS mixing assumes a decent audio system; with DD the effect is like "mega-bass" on a Walkman. Argh. Mega-bass effects confuse bass volume with bass extension. Is this DD's problem? If you have a sub at all, you don't need to color the sound like that. The effect is not in-yer-face, its banging-yer-head. Against a hard wall. Thanks, Matt and Ryan. I agree Gladiator and Terminator 2 demonstrate the superiority of DTS. We recently got The Fellowship of the Ring extended version. The DTS sound is miles better than the DD on the same DVD, or on the standard "theatrical" release (DD only, here). Apart from the DTS, the extended version also retains lots of great scenes (informed family members say the extended T2 retains scenes that made great cuts...). Will wait for the extended Two Towers. I have not heard a single example of a movie or DVD-audio where DD comes even close to DTS for making you feel you are there, in the middle of it all. |
|
mmj | In order to correctly reproduce DTS signal on movie soundtracks, your DTS decoder must be capable of adding ten decibels to the LFE channel. On my DTS decoder, the default setting for the LFE channel in DTS mode is +0 db. The manual tells me that for watching DVD movies encoded with DTS, I should set this to +10 db. In DD mode, the correct setting is 0 db. So, I have my decoder set to reproduce the LFE at 0 db for DD and +10 db for DTS, which are the correct settings for movies (for DTS audio CDs, apparently, you should set the LFE to +0 db). I find that with this setting, I can calibrate my system for both DTS and DD and the LFE level is correct on both. It's possible that your DTS decoder does not include this setting, which will make it harder for you (LFE will sound softer on DTS than on DD). However, I assume your decoder will have it. This means it's not that the LFE on your DD sources is too high, it's that the LFE on your DTS sources is not high enough. You need to set the DTS receiver to output LFE at +10 db for DTS. Then, you can adjust the gain on your sub for this level and it should be find for both DD and DTS. |
|
mike | John, Just wanted to say thanks for your effort in posting such excellent information! After reading Dolbys "accurate" tests and weak defense strategy I think its even clearer to all that there truly "IS" a diference between DD and DTS. Im sure most will agree that every DTS encoded soundtrack they have ever heard has way more impact than its Dolby Digital counterpart. I have never heard a DD track I liked better and I also have never heard any extra "noise" or coloration Dolby speaks of on a DTS track compared to DD. I understand Dolbys position and their wanting to fight to keep Dolby digital in the forefront but Im sure I speak for many when I say: "Thanks but no thanks Dolby...why cant you just be a good sport and admit that youve lost this one" Thanks again for the great material John! -mike |
|
| Guys, i just want to thank you for the information you have collected here. It was very usefull and entertaining. Things like this make the net valuable cuz you can check out anybodys experience and learn from it. I would like to make a contribution to this discussion but i did not know a thing about this until i checked out this page, all this due to the doubt i got from reading my dvd specs and starting to ask myself wich could be the difference between dts and dolby.Thanks from Argentina.(excuse my crapy english) |
|
John Allen | Juan, Thanks! If anyone likes their small number of "classical music" releases, there are some great DVD-audios on the budget label Naxos. They have Dolby Digital and DTS, and you can switch while paying. Just listen. There is no contest. |
|
John Allen | Sorry, "while playing". |
|
John A. | Mike, Thanks. After some more listening I stick with my opinions posted in July. However, I notice the "mega bass" effect in Dolby Digital goes away with the receiver setting "Satellite speakers small". I am wondering if my receiver's processor on "satellite speakers large" gives the DD bass to the sub without subtracting it from the other channels. That could explain it. But every way I listen, DTS is better sound. |
|
| Hello JOhn Allen. My name is John Bennicelli aka Johnny the Gun.. I rea your post and I am extremely interested in helping you out... There are a variety of variables that can and will manipulate characteristics involving the dispute between DD and DTS. There is a reason John, why DD is the standard and DTS is the "rare" encoding. First and foremost Dts cost more because it carries higher bandwidth and is 4 times the capcity that DD is. It is a universal truth DTS is BETTER than DTS, I thought the opposite until I got my TOTL HOME THEATRE. Blade 2 in my house sounds better than in the theatre that played it in DTS!!! Second, regarding your problems I ask you what type of speakers, wiring, type of amplifier or receiver you have, speaker placement... What I am getting at JOhn is the fact that since you and I agree DD and DTS are different formats, you need to realize that your system is not faulty, nor your decoder, not even your setup. You cannot keep the same settings for both formats, since they are not the same. There are I believe Dts and Dts es. The difference is minute and will not affect how the movie plays. I see that you are complaining about the pointless bass that plays, well guess what? You are complaining about the "encoding" of the DVD not your system. I hope you agree that if you were watching "THE WEDDING PLANNER" you would not get BASS from a plate fallin on the ground, sometimes not even a car crash would set off your subwoofer. Why? because it is a friggin love movie with no market to create a bass'ridden soundtrack. Now you watched an Action movie, well guess what the demographics suggest that people who watch ACTION movies WANT BASS!!!! Hate to tell you but if you do not want the extra bass purchase a good enough high end receiver that has a variable, selectable crossover. WHat kind of sub do you have? BEcause it sounds like you have a subjective problem! A subwoofer will NEVER SOUND different or play different unless YOU have it calibrated wrong OR well there is no other reason. Human error not system error, I hope this helps. On my system DD sounds just as good as DTS, but I concede that DTS is better... |
|
| Johnny, Thank you. I agree. I started this thread when I was trying to understand the big difference, and why no-one else had noticed or commented on it. It feels good that you tell me it is not me, nor my system! Having got in some more months' experience of home theatre, I always choose DTS if it is on the disc. It is better in every way. My family agrees. I also get the impression DTS is increasingly an option on DVDs. If the disc only has DD, then I just turn the sub down at least 3 dB, sometimes 6 dB. I have also tried the speaker-level connection of the sub. It is good and the problem goes away, but less satisfying for movies, somehow. There is a great movie, now on DVD, "Chicago", where my sub (a Gale 3080W by the way) goes on standby some of the time in DTS, but when it comes on you really hear it, it is all the more effective. You are right, other producers just want to wow you with all that powerful bass. Thanks for the disc recommendations. You might be interested in a thread on "Receivers" What's the best dvd to test out my new system?. My posts there are from "John A." All the best. |
|
John A. | I recently watched "The Enemy Within" a made-for-TV US political thriller. The box says "Dolby Digital Stereo" but the sub was on all the time. Does "Dolby Digital Stereo" really mean "2.1"? The balance was OK. I wonder if Dolby Digital 5.1 gives the ".1" twice, so to speak. |
|
Unregistered guest | Good heavens for this forum. Until quite recently, I couldn't tell the difference between DTS and Dolby 5.1. I though it was some high tech, worthless gimmick on my Home Theater system. Since I am actually a sound/music buff, I started looking up which of the DVDs I own had DTS. When I finally switched some of these DVDs to DTS, the difference was astonishing. Not only did it sound louder, it also sounded more realistic and in your face. I watched "Gladiator" and "An American Werewolf In London" in DD and DTS and I must say DTS won me completely over. It is a shame not all DVDs come with this sound encoding. Someone in this forum said that DTS occupies more disc space and that is why DD is the "standard" enconding system. Well, "American Werewolf" only comes in one disc, and it has plenty of extras, plus the option to select either DD or DTS, so I doubt that's a satisfying answer. Maybe DD is the standard because SONY is THE standard on so many things that they can't bear see their OWN movies being codified differently. I recently bought the "Indiana Jones" DVD collection and was unimpressed with their DD sound mix...in fact, I think the original mix on DD 2.0 sounded way better on VHS! These are the type of movies that begged to be release with alternate codecs. Let's cross our fingers and hope that when "Star Wars" hits on DVD it comes in DTS! |
|
New member Username: Project6Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2003 | I certainly doubt that Star Wars will be on DTS...they will undoubtedly be encoded in Dolby Digtal EX and of course the proprietary THX certification, after all it is a Lucasfilm cheers |
|
New member Username: MdoltonPost Number: 1 Registered: 01-2004 | What does DD have to do with Sony? If Sony had their way, DVD's would probably be encoded in SDDS.  To compound the issue, it's hard to do strict A/B comparisons of DD vs DTS, because they often are made from different masters (DD usually from 16 bit, DTS 20-24 bit). |
|
New member Username: John_aPost Number: 57 Registered: 12-2003 | Ernesto, Thank you. Half of the problem for me has been terminology. On other posts I see some people think DTS is "Dolby Theater System" - arghhh. I agree with you completely about the superior sound of DTS. Gladiator is an excellent example. (Fantastic movie, too, of course). One interesting thing to add is DVD-Audio. For multichannel, it has a similar spec to DTS (up to 24 bit, up to 96 kHz). I have not heard it, yet. But all DVD-Audio discs have DVD-video tracks; they will play on any DVD player. The sound of a DVD-Audio disc in DTS is awesome, really. The DVD-Audio claims and terminology are also confusing (I think deliberately), but I think I finally have it sorted out, see the thread What does"DVD-audio" mean here?. Yes, DTS files are twice the size of DD files. Swedish Radio has some free demo clips which can be downloaded and burned onto a CD. The CD then plays fine on a DVD-player. The difference between DTS and DD is again striking: SR Mutichannel 5.1 Movie DVD discs have to choose how to fill up the space. Where I am, DD-only discs often some in a variety of languages - there is enough space to get different audio tracks to choose from. But a DTS track takes about the space of two DD tracks, so you get fewer languages. But if this is not a problem, the gain in quality can be amazing. For example, the Extended Editions of the Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers both have DTS - incredible sound. We will have to wait for the Extended Return of the King. The release pattern is Cinema for Christmas; DVD "theatrical" following August (DD only); Extended, following November - it really is worth waiting. There is another thread that might interest you: What's the best dvd to test out my new system? Mark, Sony is pushing SACD over DVD-A. I think we should be wary of one company owning both the format and the discs to play in it. This is another issue. Thanks, guys! I thought this thread had gone to sleep, and have only just noticed your posts. Sorry to be slow. |
|
New member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 9 Registered: Dec-03 | OK. I have a question about DTS. I recently bought an Okyo system HTS760(https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-theater/3405.html) It shows 5.1 & 6.1 DTS. I tested it with The Last Of The Mohican DVD. It has DTS English. When I play the dvd with DTS ENglish, I hear nothing. But when I change it to English 5.1 Surround English Dolby Surrond, I hear the audio. I'm connecting the audio via Optical. Any ideas? Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 562 Registered: Dec-03 | scott, Are you getting real Dolby Digital 5.1? If so, you should get DTS, too, if that is what you select in the disc menu. If, however, you are getting the Dolby Digital only as the two-channel, stereo down-mix, for example with an analogue input selected, and maybe with Prologic to give a surround effect, then you won't get DTS. DTS is 5.1 (or 6.1) or nothing. Dolby Digital, in contrast, has a stereo option for people without a 5.1 processor. |
|
New member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 10 Registered: Dec-03 | Hm, I'm kind of lost. I'm not familiar with all this. I just got this about..2 weeks ago so I'm kinda new at this. The thing taht I know for a fact is, Last of The Mohican is DTS & Dolby Digital. When I select DTS audio on the DVD, I hear nothing from my receiver although I see the DTS on the face of the receiver (it's plugged via both Optical & Coaxel). But when I select Dolby Digital audio on the DVD, I hear the audio fine via both Optical (and on the face of the receiver, I see Digital). WHen I change it from Optical to Coaxel, the face of the receiver changes to DTS, but the DVD is still selected on Digital. Confusing, very confusing. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 564 Registered: Dec-03 | scott, I am a bit stuck with understanding the problem. User manuals can be confusing and badly written, but you should maybe give it another try. If you have selected the digital DVD input to the receiver, and its connection with the player is EITHER optical OR digital-co-ax (one or the other, is doesn't matter which), then the receiver should do what the player tells it. And you tell the player which format to read from the disc, by selecting "DTS" or "Dolby Digital" from the disc's on-screen menu called something like "Audio setup" or "Surround sound format". If you don't select anything, you will get Dolby Digital by default. If you select "DTS" and don't get it, then it sounds to me like a problem with the system, somewhere. |
|
Bronze Member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 11 Registered: Dec-03 | True. If I do not select anything, it will give me Dolby Digital by default like you said. That is true. When I change it over from Dolby Digital to DTS, I hear no sounds. I see DTS on my player, but I hear nothing. In my manual, it has a chart listing all sorts of modes down the left and 6 source formats across the top. Analog/PCM, 96kHz PCM, Dobly Digital (2 channel), Dolby DIgital (Others), DTS (5.1), DTS (6.1) I see checkmarks under dts 5.1 & dts 6.1 for the following modes: Stereo & DTS Hm, still lost like me? |
|
Bronze Member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 12 Registered: Dec-03 | Ok. I did something here. I got 2 dvd players hooked up to my receiver. 1 is connected via dvd and another is connected via Video 1. DVD Player 1 ...Can not hear DTS. It is supposed to play DTS though. I have it set up as: Optical audio output & SVideo output. DVD Player 2...CAN hear DTS. It is set up as: Svideo output & Coax Output. I rearranged the inputs for DVD Player 1 to follow DVD Player 2 but no DTS still. The only difference is that DVD player 1 has Optical and no COAX while DVD Player 2 has COAX and NO Optical. Can that be the factor which decides if I am to get DTS or not? Thanks |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 572 Registered: Dec-03 | scott, Well, you have progress! You get DTS! Optical and digital co-ax interconnects are two ways of doing exactly the same thing. They both transmit data for DTS, and any other digital data (CD, Dolby). You can swap things around. WIth a bit of experiment I think you'll find out what the problem is. Consider the possibility that both players can "Hear" DTS on the DVD disc, but DVD Player 1 is unable to pass the message on to the receiver and so you don't hear it from the speakers. By the way, what it sends is just data, and it is the receiver that works out it is in the DTS "Language", then translates it. From here on, I would first take a good, close look at that optical cable. If it transmits data in Dolby Digital "Language" (quite sure? real 5.1?), it must be doing OK. Whatever sort of data is going through, you can usually actually see the laser light coming out of the port in the player (don't look directly into the beam). Then, if you plug in the optical cable, you can see if the light is coming out the other end of the cable. Let us know when you get it sorted out. I think you are nearly there. |
|
Bronze Member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 13 Registered: Dec-03 | Well, I did what you said. I played the dvd on DTS audio (DTS 3/2.1) I still hear nothing. I played it on Digital (3/2.1) I hear. I took a look at the optical wire. When it was on DTS, I see no red beams. When it was on Digital, I saw red beams. On the back of DVD player 1, these are the outputs listed: Optical output Component Video output Audiot Ouput Left, Right & Subwoofer SVideo Output There is no Multi-Channel connection. Do I need this to get DTS? So weird. DVD Player 2 has the same outputs and DTS works, just that i'm using coaxial instead of Optical. http://www.timefordvd.com/hardware/review/Panasonic_DVD-RV31.shtml That is the dvd player I have. It does say DTS is playable. Hm... |
|
Bronze Member Username: HwjchimPost Number: 14 Registered: Dec-03 | John, Thanks a lot for your help. I finally got DTS to work. I did a little searching on google and came across another forum stating: First time Using DTS on my system and there is no sound when selecting DTS on a DVD. Dolby Digital and music are working though, why? All three of these things MUST be present and configured for DTS playback: 1) Your receiver must be set to "Auto detect" or forced to DTS decoding. 2) In your DVD player's digital audio setup menu, you must ENABLE DTS. Dolby digital is on by default, and on 99.9% of players, DTS is NOT turned on from the factory. 3) Select the DTS track in the disc's setup menu. After I turned DTS on, it now works perfect! Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it! Woohoo! |
|
Bronze Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 60 Registered: Feb-04 | scott: Believe it or not I really have been thinking about your problem for three days now. I got to thinking about my old DVD player, a Sony, which would output Dolby Digital automatically, but would not do DTS out unless you programmed it through the audio setup menu. But the troubling thing was that you said the receiver had the DTS indicator on the receiver's display panel. Moreover, you said that you were getting Dolby Digital on both players, so the basic hookup/setup was obviously OK. So I was going to have you doublecheck the errant player's DTS output before totally throwing my hands up in dispair. It seemed highly unlikely that a (non-defective) player would output DD and not DTS. You were very lucky to attract John A.'s attention, who gave some of his valuable time to your problem. He is a serious and knowledgeable person. I've been on other forums concerning much different concerns, and this one is remarkably free of smart alecks who contribute nothing but their idea of "humor." My thanks to you John. And Scott, let us know more about your new-found digital surround world. That said, I've been wanting to add to the original theme of this thread. The other night I was testing audio surround with the Sound & Vision setup disc, which supports both DD and DTS. After testing the 5.1 DD test tones (white noise and LFE), I went to the identical DTS test mode on the DVD. To my surprise, the DTS tones were a full 5 dB higher than the DD tones. This I heard and was confirmed by the SPL meter in my hot little hand. Was it just this disc? I doubt it, but I have not tried comparing actual movie DVD soundtracks with both DD and DTS with my meter. Moreover, my experience was that there was actually less difference between DD and DTS on the bass test, only about 3 or 4 dB higher for DTS. Now, all that said, I have three stupid questions to ask: 1) Why do powered subwoofers have two line inputs, while most receivers/pre/pros have only one? Certainly the .1 is mono, and so is the sub and the signal going into it. 2) I understand why DD is the default soundtrack on DVDs, but why is it necesessary to "enable" either DD or DTS from a DVD player's digital (optical or coax) output? 3) What is the Easter Bunny's real name, and where does he/she get the candy? Happy Easter (and Passover)! |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 581 Registered: Dec-03 | scott, Great. Glad I could help. Just like John S, I was puzzled by your problem. But, really, you solved it yourself, I think! John S, First, thank you for those complimentary remarks! I have noticed, without measuring, exactly the same higher volume in DTS 5.1 than in DD AC-3 (the 5.1 format) - except on the LFE channel. As regards the main channels, I think the higher sampling frequency of DTS may be part of the explanation. As regard my original question "Why does the bass sound so much louder in DD?", a simpler explanation has occurred to me recently: it may have to do with different decisions on how to mix and master the 5.1 tracks for DD on different discs. Certainly the "megabass" problem seems to vary from disc to disc, so I am hoping my idea is progress. It could easily be confirmed/refuted by anyone who actually does the commercial recording and mastering. Here it is. Hypothesis "Dolby Digital" means an awful lot of things. You can even find it on VHS tapes. We now have some ancient TV (BBC's "Dr Who") on commercial DVD, which proudly states "Dolby Digital Mono". I am going to use "Dolby Digital" or "DD" to designate the AC-3 version, which gives 5.1 surround sound. If the industry would be clear and consistent with terminology, life would be an awful lot simpler. So much of this forum boils down to people using the same terms to describe different things! Now, "Dolby digital", even in its strict AC-3 sense, is very much designed to be an audio format for movie soundtracks. It must play on a wide variety of systems, have small files, and generally be "All things to all men". You play a DD DVD in stereo (most people still do this, I think) then the LFE channel material must be there in the stereo mix. If you play the DD in 5.1, this frees up the main channels; LFE can be on the ".1". BUT the recording engineers for some discs may have decided to put the LFE on the ".1" track IN ADDITION to somewhere else, probably the front L and R channels. There could be two reasons for this being perceived to be sensible: 1) Most "all-in-one", "out-of-the-box" systems have very small speakers all round, probably rolling off at 100 Hz or so. So carrying the LFE on the main channels, too, will not cause problems for these systems - the speakers themselves are effectively filtering it out on most HT systems. In contrast, people's stereos usually have much better speakers, but no sub, and you want them to get the LFE even in two channel. 2) A lot if consumers just like massively exaggerated bass - "megabass" is thought to be a desirable feature on Walkman and MP-3 players. SO they won't mind if the bass happens to be duplicated, the theory might go. So, my guess is, we are hearing the LFE channel twice. At least on DVDs mastered according to the objectives above. This would explain why the problem disappears when I choose speaker setting "All small plus sub", and "Surround and centre small; front L an R large; no sub". DTS, in contrast, makes fewer compromises. The format is intended for higher-quality sound, advises full-range speakers all round, and 5.1 or nothing - it is not available in stereo. So the LFE material is given ONLY to the ".1" channel in DTS, and the duplication does not arise. Neat, eh?! Can anyone confirm this hypothesis, or say why it is wrong? Y-connectors and Easter Bunny Now your "stupid" questions (they are not stupid!). 1) I think the two sub line inputs (and outputs) are a hangover from the days when an active sub needed to have an application in stereo, too. So a stereo pre-amp could give its two channels to the power amp, then, in parallel, to two active subs. The subs had a high-frequency blocking filter to cut out all the sound handled effectively by the main speakers, through the stereo power amp. Then, to preserve the option of using just one active sub for both channels, you needed to be able to take both the L and R inputs from the stereo pre-amp, so the single sub could reproduce the low frequencies from both channels. In most modern applications, the sub is getting one dedicated channel all to itself, so you only need one input. However, makers are reluctant to give up features that even a minority of customers might still need. That is understandable. So, it is evolution, man. The same reason we each have an appendix, and men have n*pples. ["The following words are not allowed on this discussion board: n*pples" ... what is the matter with the World......?] What is not understandable, except in terms of deception-for-profit and/ or self-delusion, are the "Y" connectors for the single cable. They split the cable to supply the two inputs to the sub, and these two are then promtly merged to give a single input to the subs mono power amp. Of all the ludicrous devices. And, yes, there will be people who will claim they can hear the difference. There always is! My dealer has Y-connectors on every sub on the shop, and sells a whole range, from basic, to "Audiophile".... 2) Right. DD and DTS are encoded differently. DTS is PCM, like CD. You have to tell the digital audio processor which you prefer. You have to choose stream/PCM in order to get DTS, to keep that option open. That's what Scott's Onkyo was failing to do, because he hadn't chosen that option. The only problem with that setting is, you don't get the DD two-channel down mix, so you here nothing from the stereo analogue outs to your conventional hifi. SO you need to be able to choose "Stream" only, and no DTS, if that's what you want. YOu can choose "PCM" only, too, with my players. Then you get DTS 5.1, but DD only in its two-channel, CD-like form. No AC-3 3) Don't know. "Diana Krall"....? Have a nice day. I gratuitously, but especially, recommend Handel's Messiah, irrespective of your religeon or (as in my case) lack thereof. Today is the day for part II, and the Hallelujah chorus. |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 104 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., Super post on DD vs DTS. I don't get over to the HT threads much, so I'm reading you post for the first time. Just super analysis. I couldn't agree more that DTS is superior to DD. It's a shame, but we both know the superior format doesn't always win. Anyone remember BETA vs VHS? Cheers! |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 583 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Thanks! I've learned a lot on this forum. Threads like this one are a bit of a personal diary of trying to figure out simple things, and the questions people ask usually help no end. This one started nine months ago, when I was a complete beginner with surround sound, and I've only just found the answer, if that (April 11) is indeed it. Just from sitting and listening, though, let me rephrase my new discovery. I don't know if you know, or if you agree. DVD-Audio is to DTS as DTS is Dolby Digital. It would be impossible to recommend DVD-Audio too highly to the critical listener, and lover of music. It is the state of the art. And what a long way the art has come! |
|
Silver Member Username: Rick_bNew york Usa Post Number: 106 Registered: Dec-03 | JohnA., As always you are very welcome. While I have your attention, I could use your help. My Toshiba SD3107 DVD player decided to self destruct. I am looking for suggestions for a replacement. Thinking NAD532 or do you know anything about the Cambridge Audio 540 Azur? I posted under DVD players "NAD532 info, but got no response. As for DVD-Audio I can't comment, I'm still too fresh out of the egg. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 590 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, "Fresh out of the egg"....?! Twilight of the Compact Disc Opinions on NAD 532 All the best. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 598 Registered: Dec-03 | Rick, Here is my review of the NAD T533. It starts a new thread, under "Receivers": The only comparison made there is with the T532. NAD T533 DVD/CD player user's review, and DVD-Audio |
|
Unregistered guest | As far as I am aware, stereo DD track is either a downmixed 5.1 track, or a seperate 2.0 track entirely. The fact that your system plays through the sub with DD on a 5.0 track seems a bit suspect. Do you have any test sounds you could play with? What it sounds like to me is that the bass is being filtered from the main speakers and sent through the sub instead of just the LFE. I'm sure I've seen an option for something like this somewhere on my dad's surround amp. If you could get/create a small demo that plays on each speaker seperately and has a lot of bass to it, you could see if the sub is playing when it shouldn't be. I have yet to hear the wonders of DTS and am rather looking forward to when my parents finish building their new house and have a dedicated room for the plasma screen and 7.1 surround system. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_aPost Number: 661 Registered: Dec-03 | Chris, You make a good point. Thanks. I have not reached a firm conclusion on this. I have a test disc on order from Aix records and shall report back if it tells me more. All I can add is that the "megabass" problem is not there, so far, with DD AC-3 processed in my NAD T533 DVD-A/DVD-V player. This is consistent with your suggestion that the problem is with the behaviour of the receiver. |
|
Unregistered guest | DEAR ALL , I HAVE JUST BOUGHT A JBL SCS178 5.1 SPEAKER SYSTEM ALONGWITH YAMAHA RX V540 A/V RECIEVER CAPABLE OF RE PRODUCING DTS ES 6.1 DISCRETE N DOLBY DIGITAL EX 6.1 SOUND THROUGH ITS DECODERS. I HAVE RETAINED JVC CENTER SPEAKER FROM MY LAST SPEAKER SYSTEM AND AM USING SAME AS REAR CENTER SPEAKER. IT IS GIVING ME A VERY GOOD ENHANCED SOUND FIELD WHILE WATCHING DVD MOVIES BUT WHEN I AM LISTENING TO MUSIC ON CONVENTIONAL STEREO SOURCE ( CD OR CASSTTES ) , IT IS NOT THAT MUCH EFFECTIVE . CAN ANYONE PLS GIVE ME TECHNICAL ADVISE THAT WHETHER IT IS OK TO USE MY JVC CENTER AS REAR CENTER OR SHOULD I BUY NEW 6.1 SURROUND SPEAKER SYSTEM . THKS |
|
Silver Member Username: Project6Post Number: 461 Registered: Dec-03 | yes, you should be fine using the jvc center as a rear center. |
|
Unregistered guest | I don't know if this thread is still alive. I wish I had found it long ago. It would have many questions that I had. I have been looking for a dvd/vcr and saw a combo. It said something about dts 2.0. I was wondering if anyone had heard of it. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Marc |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1630 Registered: Dec-03 | fou9598, According to what I read from DTS (see links July 06, above) DTS is 5.1, or it is nothing. So "DTS 2.0" could be the player or receiver just giving the front left and right channels from the DTS 5.1 recorded disc. I have learned some more since starting this thread. My NAD T533 DVD-V/DVD-A/CD player (see link on post April 12, above) does Dolby Digital much better, giving a 5.1 analogue output to the receiver (as with DVD-A). There is no "megabass" problem even with "all speakers large", so I am pretty sure the original fault is with the Dolby Digital decoder in the receiver. Yes, DTS is still better than Dolby Digital. But, for sound quality alone, DVD-Audio is another step forward again, and a big one. |
|
fou9598 Unregistered guest | thanks for the info John A. Much appreciated. One other quick question. Is coaxial better than optical? Thanks in advance. Take care and have a great day, Marc |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1662 Registered: Dec-03 | Marc, You are welcome, and thanks. Quick answer: there is no difference in sound between electrical co-axial, and optical, digital connections. Optical can never receive or transmit radio-frequency interference; co-ax almost never (unless the cable is damaged). There is a whole thread on this: Coaxial Digital Connection Vs Digital Fiber Optical Connection? |
|
Bronze Member Username: GoldenarrowPost Number: 41 Registered: Jun-04 | Here is a nice web site that answers LOTS of basic questions about home theater and sound formats. This link goes to the LFE question. Further down, there is discussion about DD and DTS as well as a nice chart of which format has what level of resolution. http://www.surroundassociates.com/fqmain.html#1.5 |
|
Bronze Member Username: GoldenarrowPost Number: 42 Registered: Jun-04 | I forgot to mention that I like DTS as well, the above web page link mentions that DTS is only compressed 3 or 4 times and DD is compressed 11 times which seems to answer the question as to why DTS sounds better. DTS can also be played through the A/V receiver DTS decoder which makes it an interesting alternative. One should be able to download music in DTS and play on a regular DVD player. Has anyone tried the Swedish Radio multichannel downloads yet? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1669 Registered: Dec-03 | goldenarrow, Excellent link. Many thanks. It still does not solve the problem on this thread, except to give it a name "Bass management". I recommend that web page, though. I will post it on another thread or two, if that's OK. Yes, I have tried the Swedish Radio multichannel downloads. Recommended. You can burn onto CD and the player still knows they are DVD-V format files. Beware, however, if you try to play a DTS track in AC-3 and vice versa, by over-riding the player's automatic detection; turn the volume right down if you do that. I have two burned CDs which I used a lot to set up DTS and AC-3 - and I found the "megabass" effect there, just the same. The system set-up ("Multichannelcheck") is in Swedish but it is clear what they are doing in any language ("Now my voice is heard from the front left channel" etc., I guess). The English-language comedy-show clips are excruciatingly unfunny (to me) and full of crazy and very self-conscious "wow look what we can do" effects. There is a nice car chase. There are some very fine music clips. Recommended. Especially at the price! http://www.sr.se/multikanal/english/e_index.stm You've got to hand it to Swedish Radio for doing that. Once upon a time the BBC were at the leading edge. Not so, today. Did you know the first BBC stereo broadcast used the radio for one channel, and TV for the other....? Those were pioneering days! |
|
N. Palmer Unregistered guest | Just a general question for you guys: When I see Dolby Digital or DTS "3/2.1" on my receiver, does that mean it is playing authentic Dolby Digital or DTS? Also, my receiver tends to display Dolby Pro Logic II on the light-up while playing movies, even though my player and receiver are hooked up via coax. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 2246 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, that's usually the case. |
|
Unregistered guest | I have a computer with 5.1 creative speakers with a 7.1 soundcard. But i am not able to enable the dts option in my dvds. doesnt my computer support dts or should i download any software to enable it??? Can anyone help me..... |
|
Bronze Member Username: Usa2k4Post Number: 78 Registered: Dec-04 | You will need a software player that supports dts such as PowerDVD or WinDVD. |
|
Unregistered guest | I just bought a Harman Kardon AVR-235 reciever 7.1 with all 7 speakers hooked up to cable DVR and HD tv. Sounds great except for one problem: my back speakers work intermittently. i change channels on tv and sometimes have to go back to same channel several times to get the back speakers to stay on,(HD cable channels). It's gotta be hooked up right(it will work for hours as long as I don't change channels.) Any ideas? Thanks |
|
jonhnatan Unregistered guest | What is better dolby prologic II or DTS? |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 3142 Registered: Dec-03 | I prefer DTS |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3213 Registered: Dec-03 | Bear in mind that DTS has 6 discrete channels in the recording and on the disc. Prologic is a way of creating "matrixed" surround sound effects from a two-channel, stereo recording or broadcast They are quite different. If you have DTS on the disc, it will almost invariably sound better than prologic II. It is difficult to imagine cirumstances when this would not apply. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1257 Registered: Jan-05 | I prefer DTS too compared to standard DD5.1. Ok, Im slightly changing the topic here...... I use PLIIx for standard DD5.1 sources that are neither EX/ES or recorded in standard DTS. If they are one of the three mentioned above, I obviously select the appropriate setting, but leave it on IIx if not. While it's true that IIx is used for converting 2-channel sources to 7.1 format, it's also the best for converting 'standard' 5.1 sources to 7.1. Does anyone have any comments they'd like to add?? BTW...it's a given if I have a choice between standard DD5.1 and DTS5.1 on a DVD, I'll pick the DTS track everytime. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 846 Registered: May-05 | Adjusting it for a total overall performance, I have no problems which one I listen to of the two digital formats available they both sound equally good, depending on the mix on a few films with 52 films in dts format that I have on disc so far. The best ones that I have are on Laserdisc, with around 11, and 41 on DVD. I'll have to do a test with some of these DVD VS Laserdisc on the DTS side VS the Dolby digital there are only few films where I can do an A & B test. Apollo 13 Laserdisc and DVD Tomorrow never Dies Laserdisc and DVD Born on the Fourth of July Laserdisc and DVD Also there is a quite a few more on DVD that have dts sound, I can buy these following titles Carlito's Way dts Die Hard with a Vengeance dts |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3695 Registered: Dec-03 | I am still of the opinion that DTS is the best available audio format for DVD-V discs, at least for surround sound. Stereo PCM is probably best if people are happy with two channels. The problem with DTS is availability of discs, and convenience. DTS is 5.1 - only. If you listen in two-channel stereo, DTS is not an option, as I understand it. This means there is no problem with how to create LFE in stereo mode, which is surely the reason for the problem I originally outlined. So I think that the answer to the original question - why does bass seem exaggerated in Dolby Digital 5.1 - is simply that the front Left and Right channels are carrying the LFE channel to cater for two-channel systems, and that stays, at least on some receivers, even when a subwoofer is rendering the LFE channel, too. It happens that I have been back to two-channel stereo for some months. I have to say I do not miss the sub. This whole thread might serve as an example of how 5.1 can create more problems than it solves. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 866 Registered: May-05 | John I think it's a bit late to tell people that, two-channel stereo, well maybe around 40 years ago this would have worked out, but today its inedible 5.1 6.1 7.1 and who knows how far, far away it will go!  |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3696 Registered: Dec-03 | Andy, Well, two-channel stereo did work out. It became the standard. I just offer the observation that multichannel recording brings the problem of how to match the recording balance with that of the playback system. This problem is there in stereo, but is not nearly as severe. The ".1" brings real problems of getting the level right and setting the crossover, however many other channels there are. When different formats such as DTS and Dolby AC-3 implement low frequency effects in different ways, using a separate subwoofer becomes complicated. And there are things you need to know that are not in the owners' manuals. That is my retrospective on this thread. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 906 Registered: May-05 |  John, Well for one thing when down mixing is applied, and listening closely to one or two parts of the mix, using the SPL db meter the RTA and the ear as well as the position, the seating position, the way we feel it as well? Well I'll reference a small part of the mix, so I'm just going to stop typing for one second and do a small test..... Well I'm back I'm going to be doing a test on "Star Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Menace" Dolby digital six-track surround-EX over the next few nights, as this will take same time, but so far when down mixing the and setting the level to read easy on the SPL db meter, I've taken one part of the mix. The part I have taken is where the droids or robots, where they surround the door-way to where the Jedi are, one of the robots says "Check it out corporal where cover you" "Roger, roger" the last part of the dialogue register +3db, to make it easier, and then set it back to Dolby digital where the centre channel read +3db. Where there lightsaber's charge up, registered 0db in the centre channel, and down mixed it to two-channel where it still registered at 0db, so the part where the dialogue is spoken must be correct? Also where Obi-Wan uses the Force punch, or what ever you call it, well I've gone up and down with this though the mix and noting the LFE in the JBL control 5 monitors was not much, given the fact there small monitors with a frequency response down to 50Hz, but noting the level on the SPL db meter, and when switching back to Dolby digital, and setting the LFE level down slightly with the fader level on the 6 channel; mixer, if you haven't been following the LFE test which I have been noting the highest LFE level, anyway check it out.... So I'll get back on this one later as it's been on my mind for a while, laying dormant in mind? |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 2013 Registered: Jan-05 | I set my sub by ear, and change the level based on my mood, or type of movie. If I'm watching a movie with really strong LFE effects and it becomes a little overbearing, I simply turn down the gain a little bit until it blends exactly how I like. Vice versa when the opposite is true. SPL meters are for the birds. I use the KISS formula and set it where it sounds good. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 907 Registered: May-05 | What ever Paul, sure it must be correct, so why don't you pop on over to the UK, and show us all how it should be done, I think I did mention ear as well, hang on a sec, Yes I did say ear and how it feels too, yeah the CV are the standards to all other loudspeakers that us poor saps have to set by or else, we get a major hammering by you, stick a shock in it please. Anyway John, I'll report back on this using the SPL db meter the RTA and my feelings as well..... |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 908 Registered: May-05 | John, Noting that you also have, "The Borne Identity" as I do as well too, loud, I'll do a test on this one as well, and add it to the LFE test, I'm sure you have the levels set way too high on your home cinema set-up, I might be wrong though, but I'll surly will do a test on this one and within the next 48 hours I'll given you my verdict.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3701 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks for your interest, Andy. I'll be interested, in turn, to know what you find. At the moment I have stereo only, so I cannot do similar comparisons. I think my problem was with the receiver, which is an NAD T760. It has speaker size settings, and Dolby Digital was OK with "All small". But that is not what DTS recommends - they think you should have full-range speakers all round to get the best effect. The mega-bass effect came with DD and the "All large" speaker setting. When I switched to a player (the NAD T533) with its own DD processor, there was no problem. But it will not handle DTS at all - that job has still to be done be the receiver. As I said, the bottom line, for me, is that there are several armies fighting a format war, and the result is confusion and unnecessary complication for the user. Or else he just uses default settings and tries to get used to distorted sound. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 920 Registered: May-05 | John,  "The Borne Identity" I've checked the opening, with the "Thunderstorm" scene there is no way this film is louder than you think it is. Chapter 1 at 31secounds and the SPL db meter placed at 5 feet away from the JBL 4645 THX professional sub bass unit, which with its newer driver rated at 98db and down to 20Hz 600watts with a maximum performance of 120db alone. But is was keeping this simple and safe, with a 89db SPL on the LFE at the opening, (-18dbvu) frequency down at 25Hz coming in at 2nd peak with 40Hz coming in at 1st peak and 62Hz coming in at 3rd peak level. Switching to dts now and the level was only down by (-1db) 88db SPL, so your thinking that yours is way too loud? All my settings on loudspeakers are set to large, not small; I also took the liberty to setting to small, and noting the level, was around 90db with THX speaker to small, frequency, note: 25Hz 3rd 40Hz was 1st and 62Hz was 2nd there not the same due to the fronts being mixed in to the LFE and creating a confusing issue. As I'm typing this to you now the speaker settings, are back in there original large mode setting. If I wanted sub bass extension for the, three-screen channels, mixing I use a few techniques, along with a few extra Dolby processors and a stereo 6 channel mixer, and if you know how to use one of these its not to difficult. Again let me say I've been worked in the past as a cinema projectionist, with the techniques that I've learned I also apply these to the home cinema, anyway that's not important. Most parts of the bass that you and most other people with there home cinemas, the bass is mostly on the screen channels like Foley effects and sound effects including music score by "John Powell" in the car chase scene the music is in the background, with effects in second order and dialogue in third order, but then again it can go many ways in randomized modes. Anyway I'm playing the car chase scene all over again, great mixing by "Bob Beemer" academy award winner for "Speed" 1994 and "Scott Millan" academy award winner for "Apollo 13" 1995. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3711 Registered: Dec-03 | Andy, Many thanks. I wonder if you would mind identifying your receiver? 50 Hz on the main speakers is borderline. The effect I heard was with speakers at 40 Hz - 3dB cutoff. The other cure for my Dolby megbass effect was to connect the sub at speaker level, not line level. If I go back to using a sub, this is what I shall do. My current speakers go to 35 Hz and I really think a sub is low priority in this case. Even 50 Hz could be regarded as full-range. 85 Hz (as many home cinema speakers) and a sub is much more likely to improve things. |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 932 Registered: May-05 | It's a Kenwood KRF-X9050D THX select model, yes she is around 5 years old and still able to give the best sound at an affordable cost...  Why is the Dolby the dts and the SDDS all 20Hz to 20KHz left centre left-centre, centre, right-centre, right and split-surrounds with just the LFE 20Hz to 120Hz cut-off this is for the SDDS format which is only slightly different with the extra screen channels. So all the fronts should be 20Hz to 20KHz but its not easy to come by, so most cinemas fronts are 35Hz to 20KHz with surrounds from 40Hz top 20Hz, sub bass 18Hz to 120Hz but very few cinemas choose a good sub bass with a lower frequency response, average 20Hz- 25Hz to 120Hz, high powered with program of around 600watts 800watts to 1200watts, thereabouts. With SPL to 115 SPL db, some cinemas can reach 120 SPL db like the John Allen HPS-4000 theatres and the THX theatres as well. Anyway John, seeing I'm using matched front like the JBL control 5 still not a bad all round loudspeaker, easy to install, and with patience's in setting up, they can be cool sounding. At the present moment I've put "Escape from L.A." which as lots of low end in the fronts and the split-surrounds as well, the LFE is used sparingly but when it comes in top playing it noticing it and how it feels, now if I where to switch the LFE via the line switch on the mixer, and play the same scene over again, sure there's going to be a difference, of flatness on that practically scene... If the chance comes I'll change the JBL fronts to larger JBL again all matching at the fronts, 10inc drivers with a compression driver for the HF horn, and more Active X-over units that's the way its done, why 10inc bass drivers, the room space, that's why 15inc bass cabs will take up so much room, it wont be possible to swing a cat? |
|
Unregistered guest | where can i get DTS Video Clips with 5.1 surrond for testing my Home Theater system. pls let me know the name of site so that i can download. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3718 Registered: Dec-03 | Thanks, Andy. I remember when Kenwood was called "Trio" in UK, and they had a good reputation. Advait;- http://www.sr.se/multikanal/english/e_index.stm |
|
Silver Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 988 Registered: May-05 | John, Well there's a name I haven't heard in years (Trio) they also made Ham radios as well......... |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1045 Registered: May-05 | John, You should have a look at the LFE test thread though its bit on the quite side, I like it that way, you don't happen to use a (SPL db) meter like I do alone with an (RTA) as these items are indispensable for validating the findings, unlike one thread in the speaker section which is an unholy mess, "Are all SPL ratings equal??" a thread that truly has gone shot to hell? The LFE test https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/154770.html |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3725 Registered: Dec-03 | Andy, Thank you. I must admit that I do not own an SPL meter. One day I shall try one. I realise it might be helpful if I could provide figures. Also, we are not using 5.1 for the time being, unfortunately, partly for reasons of space. |
|
Gold Member Username: Thx_3417Post Number: 1063 Registered: May-05 | John, Reasons of, space how big is the living room? Mine is only 14xL 10xW 9xH And I can just barely swing a cat..... Figures well, on mine or yours, not sure what loudspeakers you are using bookshelf towers, PA. Mine are JBL control 5 monitors, and since I'm living in a studio flat with a single kitchen and bathroom the living-room well, being single I have this fold out bed single size, and there room enough for five to watch a film...... |
|
Alan G F Unregistered guest | DTS is better sound quality than Dolby Digital, but Dolby Digital is a more sophisticated technology! |
|
Bronze Member Username: DobyblueSt. Catharines, Ontario Canada Post Number: 16 Registered: Oct-05 | I find it interesting that someone mentioned the Star Wars Episode I DVD. In my opinion the I, II and III DVDs are incorectly labelled as having a DD-EX track. Episode III has the THX trailer in DD-EX, but not the main movie. As for the trilogy of IV, V and VI - these all do have the centre surround EX channel on them. Has anyone else noticed this? I have a Pioneer 1014TX and Pioneer DV-45A DVD-A/SACD player. When i set my receiver to Extended-Auto so that it only turns on the 6th and 7th channel when a DTS:ES or Dolby Digital EX track is present, it only sees the EX track on the IV, V and VI DVDs. I think we got hosed by Fox - they screwed up on the audio and I haven't found anyone else that's noticed it. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 4339 Registered: Dec-03 | Alan, What makes Dolby Digital more sophisticated technology? Do you know this for a fact? Are you an engineer for DTS or Dolby Labs? That is a pretty wild claim for Dolby! Can you back it up? |
|
Alan Grant Unregistered guest | Hi Berny. The qoute I entered was based on many different sources. Dolby (naturally, but...), a couple of hi-fi magazines and a friend who works in an audio/technology type of job. My understanding is that Dolby is more flexible than DTS in using different compression ratios. Yes, it is true that DTS-encoding produces better quality all round, but Dolby gives you a slight loss in quality but for a much higher ratio of compression. No, I'm not an engineer for either company, but in terms of my sources, I reckon I am not far off from the truth. |
|
CarlyNorris Unregistered guest | I have just visted this forum for first time and I feel excited about its contents so I thought I'd post here first. I really don't see or hear much difference between Dolby and Dts. They are both excellent formats. I like the fact that Dolby is more widely available so that everyone can access its technology. Also, I get the feeling after reading some posts that some folk in here are against Dolby or something |
|
Alan Grant Unregistered guest | Hi Carly. Just seen your newly-posted message, and welcome to the forum. R U a male or female - just curious? I am always a bit more diplomatic or sensitive when girls are in the forum! (although I don't see why I should be) Anyway, I don't think it's a case of people being against Dolby. Seemingly, Dolby seem unwilling to admit that, perhaps, yes, their format isn't as good (in terms of sound quality) as DTS. However, like I said earlier (speaking with Berny), I do believe Dolby has its own merits (and from good sources, too). It really depends on the encoding of any given film. There are two or three Dolby Digital soundtracks that I believe match DTS - one being LOTR: The Return Of The King. The point is, you can get some outstanding Dolby DVDs and some 'perhaps' substandard DTS, which kind of evens the field. I am a fan of both formats, and when I buy a DVD with an additional DTS soundtrack on it, I usually play the DTS one first. Then, if I watch the movie again, I play it on Dolby, and make mental notes on comparing the two. I would say that 9 times out of 10, DTS is better, (well, maybe 95 out of 100), but the odd occasion, the Dolby soundtrack (to my ears anyway) match the DTS version. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 4344 Registered: Dec-03 | Are you saying then that its sophistication lies through its higher compression? Or is it something else? There's got to be more besides compression that makes it more sophisticated. |
|
Alan Grant Unregistered guest | Yeah, I guess I am saying it is through higher compression to minimal loss of quality ratio that makes it sophisticated. Actually, I wonder if Dolby Digital used the same ratio as DTS, that it would sound just as good or better? Now there's a thought... so I suppose it's minimal loss of quality to high rate of compression ratio that makes it better than DTS. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3811 Registered: Dec-03 | Dolby Digital and DTS have different methods of compressing the signal. The same 5.1 soundtrack requires more than twice as much disc space in DTS as in Dolby Digital AC-3. DTS is linear PCM, like CD and DVD-A, but with an added "perceptually lossless" compression. So I read from the links in the first post on this thread. Dolby Digital is something else. That is why you need different digital audio input settings on the player - "PCM" for DTS and "Stream" for DD, at least on my players. As I said in a few posts in August, above, my new player with its own, on-board, Dolby Digital processor gave much better results, and no duplication of the LFE channel (see April 11, 2004, above). But DD was still not as good as DTS, in my opinion. It is a pleasure to see that this thread is still useful, and provokes discussion. |
|
CarlyNorris Unregistered guest | Thanks for the information, Alan and John. I must admit, whether DTS is better or not, I enjoy watching/listening to movies in either digital format. Whatever the argument, in Dolby and DTS, we have two excellent formats with their own attributes, it seems. Long live digital sound in movies!!! |
|
Alan Grant Unregistered guest | It would be nice, if indeed (and I think that this is the case) DTS is better, that Dolby should come out and admit their format is not as good in terms of sound quality. But Dolby has it's advantages - high compression with minimal loss of sound, Night mode (where available on digital surruond amplifiers) and massive (universal) compatibility. |
|
edmund Unregistered guest | I am a little confused here when i'm thinking of DTS decoding. If my DVD player has DTS and Dolby Digital decoding capability, do i stil need to get a Receiver with DTS and Dolby decoding too? |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 661 Registered: Feb-04 | "I am a little confused here when i'm thinking of DTS decoding. If my DVD player has DTS and Dolby Digital decoding capability, do i stil need to get a Receiver with DTS and Dolby decoding too?" It is more accurate to say your DVD player "supports" DD and DTS. But the actual decoding is done by the receiver, so the answer to your question is yes. |
|
edmund Unregistered guest | Hi John, thanks for your reply. But my DVD does stated it has DTS decoding capabilities. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 668 Registered: Feb-04 | If that's the case, then the player should have a set of analog line outputs for surround (left front, center, etc.) on the back. You would still need a multichannel amp with the appropriate line inputs in order to handle the various signals from the channels. Not to mention some sort of volume control for each channel. |
|
edmund Unregistered guest | yes my amp does have the input for front, surround and centre speakers. however, it has no DTS decoder, it is only DTS ready. |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 670 Registered: Feb-04 | There you go then. But the question remains does your DVD player have the appropriate analog surround outputs to hook up to the amp? |
|
edmund Unregistered guest | hi john, yes my dvd player have the 5.1 analog sound outputs |
|
Silver Member Username: John_sColumbus, Ohio US Post Number: 674 Registered: Feb-04 | edmund, What's the problem here? Hook 'em up and start playing. |
|
run Unregistered guest | I see here are all enthusiast for audio. So here is my question. Do I gain something when I re-encode movies from DD 5.1 to DTS ? |
|
New member Username: Outlaw16511Erie , Pennsylvania US Post Number: 9 Registered: Feb-06 | DTS 5.1 sounds better to me than DD 5.1 The bass in DTS is clearer and does just boom. DTS the bass that comes out is just awesome IMO. I look for movies now that have DTS 5.1 |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 6563 Registered: Dec-03 | run, What do you mean re-encode movies? Not all movies have the DTS code, so you will not be able to hear it in DTS even ifyour receiver is capable of DTS. |
|
New member Username: JohnmcncIrvine, California US Post Number: 1 Registered: Apr-06 | Hi, I have a successful DTS/DD home theater system. But here I want to know , some thing diffrent. I have a creative 4.1 sound card in my system .It also has powerDVD with DTS and DD decoding facility. I would like to purchase a 4.1 channel speaker syetem(creative inspire 4400). Wil I get surround sound ? I am asking this because I read something like this in the dts website.(dts on pc,software method.) Expecting a solution? |
|
New member Username: JohnmcncIrvine, California US Post Number: 2 Registered: Apr-06 | I'd make my question clear . The system I meant means my PC. Please give me an answer. |
|
New member Username: RunPost Number: 1 Registered: Apr-06 | @berni My Friend re-encoded Movie audio from DD5.1 to DTS with computer (program be-sweet...). What have he gained ! I think nothing, becose the audi data from DD5.1 that was not present in signal can't come back, right ??? |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics