Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » DTS vs. Dolby Can you tell the difference? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: DTS vs. Dolby Can you tell the difference?
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-25-2002 02:26 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It is kind of interesting just how different the DTS and Dolby Digital formats are between their professional cinema versions and home theater versions.

Dolby Digital uses the same AC-3 compression system on both cinema and home formats, but the home formats typically run at higher data rates (320kb/s for cinema, 384kb/s and 448kb/s for DVD). Dolby Digital uses a copy protection system which prevents home Dolby Digital decoders from playing the DD bitstream off a 35mm print.

While DTS theatrical is actually a 5.0 format with the LFE in the surround channels (the advantage is even milder data compression levels on the 820 kilobit per second track), the home theater version uses a totally different compression format, a wider range of data rates, full range surrounds, separate subwoofer channel and the added option of DTS-ES Discrete 6.1.

The point with all this is that many DVDs don't sound very much like their theatrical counterparts. On action films the bass and surrounds usually seem more pumped up. But on some dramas and comedies the audio track may be more conservative than the previous theatrical release.

I think DTS has more of an advantage against Dolby Digital on DVD than it does in the commercial cinemas. One of the biggest advantages is that a DTS 5.1 or 6.1 mix on DVD is never compromised with a downmixing scheme that hamstrings so many DD 5.1 tracks. Then you have the true Discrete 6.1 thing Dolby Digital is unable to do. I also believe the higher bitrates and lower compression levels give DTS an additional advantage. That, and the reliability of the dual system approach, is also why DTS is my favorite of the theatrical systems.

 |  IP: Logged

David Baum
Film Handler

Posts: 90
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Aug 2000


 - posted 05-25-2002 06:59 PM      Profile for David Baum     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby

hi

you're absolutely right! one of the big no no with Dolby digital in home version on dvd is the downmixing preparation that affects the dynamics of the sound. Most studios cook down the mix when encoded in Dolby digital to allow the majority of dvd consumers to play the track in stereo or dolby surround on their tvs or "cheap" or old A/V systems. At least a DTS track can't be affected this way: it can only be played in... DTS . A "free" DTS track is more demanding on the audio chain (amps, speakers, room accoustics etc).
A 448 Dolby loses 92% of the original PCM master information (compression ratio of 15:1)
A 754 DTS loses 83% (compression ratio of 6:1)
A 1509 DTS loses 67% ( compression ratio of 3:1)
The argument of many is that, anyway, the ears can perceive those 92% lost....since most of these sounds are either beyond the treshold of audibility or covered by louder sounds in the mix. yeah yeah
There's also the dialnorm issue which is not used in theaters of course. Though its use on dvds "can" be accepted , it's improper use is something unacceptable. Sometimes the improper dialnorm level creates an offset on the processor by as much 12db sometimes! (lower!). Dialnorm affects the efficiency of the N/A converters says DTS.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 05-27-2002 10:43 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
David,

Audio data reduction is not that simple. Just because you are missing x% of the bits does not mean you are missing x% of the audio signal. For instance, Delta PCM is a completely lossless coding scheme that has only 1/2 the number of bits recorded. It works by coding the difference between the current sample and the next sample. Upon decoding, 100% of the original information is there.

Dolby's AC-3 codec (and I believe DTS' Coherent Acoustics codec also) is a transform codec. The time domain PCM information is recorded as a set of frequency domain fourier transforms. This step alone gives a large amount of compression. For the most part with AC-3 data is not just thrown away. The number of bits used to code a forier coefficient is varied based on psychoacoustic masking techniques, ie. a loud 1 khz sound on the center channel will mask a soft 1 khz sound on the right channel so the right channel sound is given less bits (more noise) when it's coded. After this bit sharing is complete, some other techniques are used to get further reduction when needed and as a last resort some info is thrown away completely.

As to the original question, theatrical DTS and DD probably sound a little different. As to which sounds better, that's a tough one. Maybe somebody could design a blind test setup and invite some people to rate the two systems in the same theatre. I believe that Dolby did this once with an audience and the results came out with most people prefering the sound of Dolby Digital. Just the fact that there is a debate (when theatrical DTS is lossless compression) proves that 320 kbps AC-3 is not missing >90% of the PCM information when decoded.

I do tend to prefer DTS on DVD only because it does not get altered at all by the processor but the difference would not get me to spend extra money on a DTS DVD vs a DD one.

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 05-27-2002 11:23 AM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lyle, thanks for straightening this thread out on the issue of lossy vs. lossless compression. "Compressed" does not necessarily mean that any of the original data has been lost. Think of file compression utilities like WinZip: It can compress files by a factor of 90% or more, but no data is lost.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-27-2002 01:11 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The APT-X100 codec used by DTS Theatrial is not a data lossless encoder. It is a simple waveform based codec running at a 4:1 compression ratio (16-bits, 44.1kHz, 5.0 channels at 820kb/s).

Dolby Digital uses a Cosine Transform encoder and SDDS uses what they call as Adaptive Transform encoder. Increased levels of compression are gained when you take an audio sample and turn it 90 degrees out of phase. Unfortunately, you also gain abberations in the audio and permanently lose even more of the original audio detail. Psychoacoustical masking has to be used to devote more bits and volume intensity levels to particular channels to mask out others in the background that listeners may not be able to hear anyway. Generally, the process works pretty well, but at low bitrate levels certain kinds of audio (music in particular) really fall apart.

Sony's MiniDisc format uses Consumer ATRAC encoding, which is similar to the Professional ATRAC encoding used in SDDS. MiniDisc recordings often sound pretty thin and trebly compared to their PCM Music CD counterparts.

Home DTS uses transform encoding, bitpooling and other "more advanced" techniques than its theatrical waveform counterpart. However, DTS operates at high enough bit rates that items like music material often sound better than a DD 5.1 counterpart. The best DTS material on DVD is usually encoded at the 1509kb/s bitrate instead of the lower 754kb/s data rate. Unfortunately, many DVD content creators think 754kb/s is good enough. On some movies yes, but for music oriented stuff I say you have to go with 1509kb/s. DTS music CDs use a 1234.8kb/s data rate. DTS Theatrical operates at only one fixed data rate, 820kb/s.

Digital Cinema often features uncompressed 20-bit Linear PCM 5.1 audio, and I think that is one of the only really good things about such setups at this point. The sound format is a no-compromise solution. It is just too bad the same cannot be said for the picture.

Using DVD-ROM discs, uncompressed LPCM 5.1 could be delivered for film prints via things such as a new generation of DTS machines. Even 10.2 Surround would be a good possibility. 70mm 10.2 Surround is the real brass ring of high quality film production and presentation should hit.

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 05-27-2002 02:31 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't mean to imply that DTS or AC-3 are lossless. I was pointing out as Lyle said that x% compression can be achieved with much less than x% loss of the original data (or possibly no loss at all, depending on the scheme).


 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-27-2002 06:51 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the points made by Lyle are drifting of the point of film technolgy as was the comment on winzip they are not what is being delt with (in this forum film handlers)
DTS typically has less losses of raw data and is on playback almost imprecivable from the original master the other systems relie on masking which is not an accurate reproduction of the original
Also in the UK there were blind test performed and were reported in a BKSTS journal

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 05-27-2002 07:02 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Winzip was mentioned because it's an example of lossless compression of digital data that everyone can relate to (how many film-techers have a deep understanding of film sound compression schemes? Probably not many). The thread had already drifted into a discussion of film sound compression technology and Lyle corrected some earlier statements that were seriously in error.


 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-27-2002 11:16 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I brought up DTS' APT X-100 encoder being data lossy and not lossless over something Lyle said --aside from the other corrections he made.

What DTS theatrical does is really kind of at the limits for how 16-bit 44.1kHz audio can be compressed. A great many radio stations use audio servers for music playback and much of their material is data compressed in a very similar manner and identical 4:1 data compression ratio. DTS just kind of hit the "sweet spot" on an acceptable level of audio quality while being able to fit 100 minutes of 5.0 audio onto a CD-ROM disc.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.