 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I was wondering what others experience has been in this regard. I have watched a bunch of movies since adding my processor to my stereo system. I have not really heard a difference between DTS & DD. Granted on some movies the DTS is better, on others DD has the advantage & on some I can't really tell. Is this really a case of two different systems that achieve the same result in the end? I am wondering what others have experienced.
Follow Ups:
My wife and I were watching a Netflix rental copy of the Bone Collector one night, when the the video became to pixellate and break up near the climactic scene of the film (just before the killer enters the apartment of the detective played by Denzel Washington). I ended up stopping the film and starting a few frames later and was able to watch the end with no problem. However, the audio seemed much more "closed in" and less atmospheric, particularly the sound of the rain falling outdoors. I had started the film with the DTS tracks, and when I restarted the disc it defaulted to DD. Music tracks are the most revealing-Fantasia 2000, for example-the DTS just wipes the floor with the DD.
I think that the main difference is DTS' ability to create a soundfield out of the 4 (in my case) speakers whereas DD generaly has occasional sound effects in the back.
When I've watched a DVD with both, I seem to like DTS better. However, I have no way to know if equal care was put in to both. I sustect not since DTS appears to fall into the category of a "premium feature". Also, according to someone posting an AR, DD uses a technique called "dialog normalization" -- the idea is sort of gain riding the difference between the dialog and non-dialog content in order to make the dialog easier ti hear. This makes a direct comparrisson very difficult even if someone produced a disc expressly for ABX testing!
After one of our fellow inmates pointed out that the Technics SH500 dumps bits to control volume, I made adjustments and ran the Technics full out and risked blowing up my rear speakers ;-). Using Gladitor, DTS soundtrack was clearly superior, better midrange and bass definition.
Just thought I'd ask, since I also own an SH500 processor hooked up to a 2-channel stereo preamp.What process did you use to calibrate the speakers? Did you use the RadioShack SPL meter to calibrate speaker output levels? Did you adjust the speaker delay settings on the SH500 before calibrating these levels?
Method for obtaining best DD/DTS sound from this procesor:
1) Set Volume on SH500 to the "0" position on the SH500 display, i.e. hit the remote's "+" volume all the way up.
2) Use your stereo preamps volume control to adjust the main speaker's output level from an "HT calibration DVD" like Video Essentials or AVIA till it register's 75dB on the SPL meter at your listening position. Easiest way to measure is to put the SPL meter on a camera tripod in your listening seat (with the meter pointing forward and with a 45 degree upward slope).
3) Adjust speaker delay (for center and surround speakers that are closer than equadistant). For the SH500 use 1 foot closer = 1ms of delay.4) Follow the calibration DVD's speaker adjustments around the room for each speaker using the SH500 remote's button for center, surround left, and surround right to adjust these speakers to a 75dB SPL reading.
When everything is calibrated this way, I can typically listen to most movies at 0dB, -3dB or at most -6dB on the SH500 master volume control and get very good DD/DTS sound reproduction. I use Dynaudio Contour speakers all around (see my equipment list below).
bstan
I was in a panic trying to figure out how to adjust the volume on the surrounds & centre, without using the Technics. Yours is a great compromise that will spare me trying to find new equipment. Mind you are you losing alot of information (bits) to the center and surround by using the Technics to control the volume to these speakers?
I'm not sure that's actually true, as the DD/DTS chips in this unit are programmed to handle this channel balancing without using the "master volume" control on the SH500.I think the method I outlined for you minimizes any detrimental effect you can attribute ti "bit resolution"
bstan
.
I expected some "smart" replies, but if you read the post carefully, I say sometimes one or the other sounds better, as well as sometimes no difference. Granted I don't have the greatest processor in the world, but what I really asking about is given the variations in mastering quality do people consistently hear one as better than another?
It's not the processor, it's the codec. The DTS codec is better at preserving the master ("getting closer to the master" is probably more accurate). The first thing most people notice about Dolby Digital, compared to Dolby Pro-Logic or Dolby Surround, is the channel separation. "WOW", what pinpoint "imaging" you have there! Yea, that's nice (BIG yawn). Unfortunately, because of this so-called advantage, it's also a double-edged sword when compared to DTS and -- yes -- Dolby Pro-Logic. The Dobly Digital codec is so "efficient" (HEAVY sarcasm) it throws away most of the spacial information. It even sounds "compressed" without the dynamic range control on. The ambient cues that our ears use in real life to perceive the environment around us (and those which surround sound systems use to recreate this illusion) gets "shit-canned" by DD. The sense of envelopment that DTS and Dolby Pro-Logic have is not a high point of DD. The soundtrack from DD in a 5.1 system sounds like it's coming from 5 different "points" in space, whereas in a DTS soundtrack it's a 360 degree soundfield. The sense of envelopment is more pronounced and easily perceived on even a modest system when compared to DD. Of course, when needed, DTS can provide for pinpoint imaging. Even Dolby Pro-Logic has a greater sense of envelopment. And just to be clear, when I say Dolby Pro-Logic I'm talking about PCM DPL -- not the Pro-Logic created by downmixing the DD 5.1 track. By the way, I see you have the Technics SH-AC500D. I bought this processor to use in my wife's system along with the A6 receiver (actually bought the two as a combo special). The speakers she uses (for her 5.1 system) cost $99 -- and that's the total for ALL of them. If I can tell the difference on a VERY modest $800 system, well, like I suggested, a visit to the ear doctor may be in order. If you'll search the archives, several people have posted about the drastic improvement in their systems after their ears have been cleaned -- no joke, just do the search.
Joe,Once can easily make the argument that DTS is a worse codec than DD because it uses 2 to 5 times the data for the same results.
Have you ever done some playing around with surround levels on various discs that are both DD and DTS encoded? I bet one of your favorite DTS discs is Gladiator, because it's "so much better" DTS encoded than it is DD encoded.
Actually, what it is, is so much LOUDER in the surrounds than DD. Really. It so happens that we perceive louder as better. I suppose a +6dB difference on surrounds might be considered "louder".
Well, do this, listen to Gladiator at -3dB on the surrounds level for DTS, then listen to the DD track at +3dB on the surrounds level. All of a sudden most (if not all) the differences you perceived will be gone.
I know, I've done the trick, and was a bit surprised.
Would be interesting for you to do this and report back what you thought.
Regards,
> Well, do this, listen to Gladiator at -3dB on the surrounds level for DTS, then listen to the DD track at +3dB on the surrounds level. All of a sudden most (if not all) the differences you perceived will be gone.Been there, done that...
Matched the sound levels with a SPL meter a long time back. The differences did NOT disappear. It wasn't much of a revelation, however. More compression equates to more lost information. Increase the compression on a jpeg image and your picture looks more lowsy.
Interestingly, the differences were much more pronounced on my mid-fi and entry-level hi-end systems. The differences are still apparent on my high-resolution system, but the "gap" in performance is much narrower. Discovered that DD is a lot better than I thought. Still not up to par with DTS, but still better than I thought previously.
If your hearing is good, your equipment is good, and you're not trying to convince yourself there's no difference, you should head over to the tweaker's asylum for guidance. Your system is likely masking the "superiority" of DTS (assuming more detail and realism is a good thing to you).
PS I'm must be really bored to answer this post. kotches, do you work for Dolby?
To me AC-3 always sounded like and Mp3 file (about 160kbits) ,good but nothing amazing , and no wonder just like with mp3 better sounding codecs have been invented using less data .How old is AC-3 ,dunno but been around for a long time , codecs get better but not if they built it into hardware, DTS to me definently sounds better ,more open , just like a comparison between a 128k mp3 and 360k mp3(vbr) ,the later will always sound better (unless u used sum truly weird settings),DD uses sum compression which certainly doesnt help it either (yeah it might sound better to us just like a FM radio at times might sound better in the car than a cd player simply because they squashed the hell out of it) ultimately transparency is the definition of the quality of any sound reproduction. Certainly if DD was using the same bitrates as DTS it would be a more defining comparison.
Of course after hearing some receivers I am not sure if it matters at all , buy the time the signal gets through it sounds flat as hell.I am a big fan of absolute minimal sound processing , but I guess in Home Theaters u gotta have the cash for something like that.What I am hoping for is what they did with mp3v2 , its still compatible with old hardware players but if you got the new player u get much better quality ,they could do that with AC-3 maybe, dunno...
Corbett,Ahh yes, the "more bits is better" argument. This is a valid assumption only if identical methods are employed, they aren't.
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that the better ones system gets, the closer the two codecs sound. After you account for known volume differentials, they are closer still.
I used to think, "DTS uses more bits, so it must be better". Now I know there's a lot more going on than DTS' use of more bits. In theory both codecs should be perceived as transparent to the input, but that isn't the way it works in the real world.
You said:
"If your hearing is good, your equipment is good, and you're not trying to convince yourself there's no difference, you should head over to the tweaker's asylum for guidance. Your system is likely masking the 'superiority' of DTS (assuming more detail and realism is a good thing to you)."Has it occurred to you, that the converse could also be true, that you're trying to convince yourself that DTS is superior, so you hear just that? Nah, that could never be the case. Also, was the thinly veiled insult warranted?
As for my employer, nope, I work for IBM, and am quite happy making my primary income from that source.
I'm not saying DD is better than DTS or vice versa, I'm saying the answer lies far deeper than just Codec A uses more bits out of the available bucket.
Regards,
The issue in my setup is likely the placement of the rear channels vs. seating position. I am still somewhat new to the details of HT and I am still figuring things out. Since my front speakers provide decent imagining, I am used to having a decent stereo soundfield, the rears sometimes give me what you are talking about, sometimes they don't. That was really why I posted the question. I need to do some more fussing with the rear speakers. My hearing was checked three years ago and was "normal."
Make sure you are using the processor at "full" volume (0dB on the volume setting). The volume control is in the digital domain and will rob you of "bits" of information if it is used as an actual volume control. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it. But if you allow a receiver to control the volume via 5.1 analog inputs, you'll retain all of the info. And yes, proper setup can be a bitch, especially if the cables for the surrounds are run up the wall across the attic to where the roof meets the adjoining frame! The ole "I don't want to see all of the wires" routine. On a brighter side, I'm glad to see that your hearing is "normal". I'm about 85% deaf.
The volume control does WHAT?!?! I guess that explains the problem. I use it as the volume control and then run it into my passive preamp. Basically it is an add on to my 2 channel system. I guess I will have to look for another processor at some point down the road.
nt
I'm looking around for one, preferably available in Canada for a reasonable (i.e. cheap) price. Thanks.
I have a Technics SH-AC500. It does a decent job and can be had for around $200cdn.
but this item doesn't show up on a search of the Panasonic/Technics site, so maybe it's discontinued. I did find some reviews of it, no details on outputs which I'm a little unsure of, and the price is sure right.
You can only find it on the used market. It has 3 digital inputs and 5.1 analogue inputs in case you go for DVD-A. Any other questions?
I wish the center channel was brought out on a line level jack, like for the sub, on HT receivers. Maybe it is on some receivers, do you know? If it was, that way I could control the center sound quality much better, since it's so important. I find the surround speaker sound quality to be not that important to me, as far as DVD enjoyment goes, so I don't mind that the cheaper receivers only have speaker-level outputs. I could use my current HT receiver elsewhere, so don't mind getting another one if one with center channel line level outputs is available. Or even one with all the decoder outputs, if it's not too pricey. Thanks for any info, I'm new at this too.
I have found you can do without the centre channel on most movies, if you have the front set up to image properly. That said the Technics has line out for all the channels.
Yes, many movies sound great without the center channel when the fronts are good, but for some reason I'm liking the center channel to be good and the others to be just surround and ambient. I guess it doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you enjoy the results.I did a little looking at specs, and so far the Harman Kardon AVR520 seems to be the cheapest receiver available here that has all the (7.1) decoder outputs, plus a ton of other stuff like stand-alone HDCD decoder. I think it's available at Future Shop, but it's not cheap if it's the one I saw on the shelf the other day, ~$1500 IIRC.
In case anyone reads this (??). I noticed the HK AVR320 also does this at a cheaper price, and also the Kenwood AV510 at less than half the 320 price. So I'm not the only one who wants it after all... BTW I went with the 320, and that is ~Cdn$1700 for the AVR520.
NT
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
