When I rent a DVD, I always check for a DTS track, but lately everything only seems to be in Dolby Digital. Have all of the studios stopped putting DTS tracks on DVD's and if so, why?

I know they still do it on Blu Ray in the form of DTS-HD Master Audio. Maybe they gave up on DVD...?

With all the hoopla that was going on in the early stages of DVD, it was interesting to see how all this was going to play out when comparing the two surround systems. I know the people at "Widescreen Review" and to this day have always touted the "superiority" of DTS over DD but this was the case only because they had a personal relationship with one of the original founders of DTS so their pronouncements were, no doubt, somewhat biased. In my own and others experimentations, it was shown, although when comparing DTS to DD in listening comparisons, the DTS soundtrack was generally 3 to 4db louder, but better, I am not so sure. A lot of this was determined by the fact that DTS has less compression. In my own totally unscientific study and despite DTS's breakthrough in the movie theaters, over the years since DVD was introduced, I did a rough calculation in that DTS was, at most, on roughly 20% of the soundtracks but ONLY in conjunction with the DD soundtrack. In the early stages, they had a few DTS only discs but they pretty much fell by the wayside. It seems Blu-Ray might be different. It seems now they are going completely one way or the other with the new lossless formats. Universal(The Hulk, Hellboy 2) has gone completely DTS Master Audio with only a DD 2.0 option while others have gone strictly Dolby Tru-HD with no DTS. I guess it depends on the movie studio but it should be interesting how it all evolves.

Hi Zarak,

At the introduction of the DVD format, Dolby Digital was the mandatory soundtrack format. dts was always optional at the discretion of the disc producer. Since a royalty is paid to Dolby and dts for the use of the compression algorithm for each, maybe it's a matter of economics.

I'm not up on the agreements for Blu-ray.

Dolby Digital is also the required transmission format for HDTV broadcasting.

Regards,

Alan

My understanding for the DTS on DVD (not sure of Blu-Ray so I won't even speculate on that) but the audio was completely remixed by DTS before being put on the discs, so it wasn't just an amplification or a re-encoding, but a full remix. Sure, the LFE seems a bit "louder," but I also find that the surround effects and overall ambiance seemed to be a bit better that DD. I have no idea how it would sound (or if the average human ear could tell the difference) if it was just "less compressed"...

Anyway, I like the DTS remixes.

I have to admit I've never done switching back and forth between Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks to decide which I favor, but if it's a different mix, then yeah, it makes sense that that would be the cause of any improvement, not any superiority in the encoding, since wasn't it mentioned before that DTS actually employs less efficient compression than DD?

It depends a lot on the version of DTS. The movie Theater version at 1.4Mb is very, very good. You find those on rare special DVD disk editions (when it is the sole soundtrack). Unfortunately, on "normal" DVD, you mostly get the 768Kpbs version, which is not really better (and in fact might even be less good, at least according to DD!) than DolbyD at 448K. You tend to get DTS tracks on disks from producers owning DTS (aka Spielberg)!

All I know is the Eagles Farewell Tour from Melbourne has a great DTS track

SO far, and maybe it is the choice of movies I have, the DTS soundtrack has always sounded as good, or in many cases, noticeably better than the DD (which still is a great encoding). Some movies are just crap, or they slap things on them, but since DTS costs extra, usually (not always) it is an improvement.

As for Spielberg, I agree... As well as him,Universal has a stake in DTS, but both of those happened AFTER the DTS soundtracks for several movies won Oscars (AKA Jurassic Park to start, Saving Private Ryan, etc)

I used to look for DTS to be on movies. It didn't keep me from buying a good flick that "only" had DD. Usually the better movies had really great DD tracks anyway, but it was like an added bonus. I wouldn't pay more than a buck or two more for a DTS disc, but then again, I'm kind of cheap!

As for the other comment CV, where does it say that DTS uses a "less efficient compression than DD?" Not saying that is wrong, I am just wondering. It is usually less compressed, but that would seem to be a positive.

Again, not trying to dump on DD. DD 5.1 is great stuff. I just generally prefer the better sounding, to me, DTS versions when available. If DTS sounds like crap to you, then listen to the included DD. No harm... No foul... Life is good!

I don't remember where I heard it discussed, but I found this page:

Dolby vs DTS - Which is Better?

"Dolby would counteract that their codec is more efficient and therefore, it can operate at a lower bit rate."

Doesn't it more completely say:
"In this Dolby vs DTS debate, DTS people argue that they are after 'sonic perfection, not space consumption' - hence the higher bit rate and lower compression.

Dolby would counteract that their codec is more efficient and therefore, it can operate at a lower bit rate. "

Higher bit rate and lower compression does not equal less efficient... However, who really knows which is actually true. Both companies want to "spin it" like a couple of competing politicians. Like the rest of the article states, there is more to it than bit rates and compression levels. I just know that I like the levels in which DTS remixes the soundtrack, and that is good enough for me.

I always choose DTS when it's available. I tried a few scenes off the LoTR trilogy DVDs when they came out, swapping between DD and DTS soundtracks, and I preferred the DTS.

I thought it was apparent from my quote that it was Dolby's biased stance.

Now I'm thinking of This Is Spinal Tap, where the girlfriend/manager suggests that they record in Dubbly...

Yeah, but who knows... They both are probably being biased.

Dolby.... bias.... that's funny!

(Even if only the old-time analog recording engineers get it! Right, Jack??)

I'm too biased to comment.

Maybe someone could help me understand the difference a little more. Is DTS always 7.1, and is Dolby Digital always 5.1? I don't remember ever seeing Dolby Digital in 7.1 on my receiver, but then again I'm still playing SD DVDs. I could be mistaken, but the only DVD I have (haven't watched them all again after going from 5.1 to 7.1)that shows up as 7.1 on my receiver is The Eagles: Help Freezes Over which I listen to in DTS.

If you want a very quick (yet complete enough) discussion on DTS and DD, wiki is there to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS_(sound_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC3

Someone mentioned Spielberg often uses DTS on DVD, but that is actually where this started from. It was the new Indiana Jones movie that I watched that didn't have DTS. If that doesn't have it, maybe no one is doing it anymore. My wife always gets a little chuckle when I check the audio options to see if it is there before starting a movie.

Did you cry while watching the latest Indy? Spielberg really nuked the fridge with that one.

Ha ha ha.... "nuked the fridge" nice reference...

Actually, I heard that a lot of the "issues" (not wanting to give spoilers) were with Lucas' ideas. He is supposed to be the one that came up with "where the crystal skulls came from" if you know what I mean. I think that, and the combination of a lot of green-screen work (obviously fake backgrounds) hurt the movie most...

I'm sorry I took the time to watch that movie. . . so disappointing.

Okay, forgot my last post about The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over being in 7.1, apparently I'm on something because I watched it yesterday again and it's definitely in 5.1.

I have a question regarding 5.1 and using rears/side channels. Is there a preferred method of listening in 5.1? In my setup (not sure if it's the same with everyone's by default) my side channels are being used, and the rears are nonexistent. Is this a better way to get a more enveloping sound? The thing that I find odd is that when I had my original older 5.1 setup, it was set up for me with two rears, and now that I have a 7.1 setup, the sides are being used.

I would imagine it will be up to one's preference, but I didn't know if I have something set up incorrectly.


Thanks guys

Edit-well I quite possibly answered my own question. I'm at Dolby Digital's website and in their 5.1 setup, they show the sides as being used.

Yep, regular 5.1 uses side surrounds, but you should be able to set your receiver to 'matrix' the side surrounds into the rear channels to spread the sound around more.

If you watch the BD bonus, Spielberg pretty much dumps the whole thing on Lucas. Spielberg says he was the one that did not want to make the movie and that Lucas came up with the novel story. Lucas is very creative, but he can't execute details worth a crap. Star Wars - the Next Generation - is all the proof you need, but Indy was the final straw – I’m not a fan of his anymore. My dog could write better dialogue.

Hah. His bark is worse than his write.

He's chasing his own tale?

I went in with such low expectations for the latest Indy that I actually ended up enjoying it. After what I had heard, I wasn't expecting much at all, so it didn't have much of anywhere to go but up from there.

Picked up the blu ray for laughs, tried twice to watch it, haven't been able to get past the first 15-20 minutes, too cheesy and slapstick without any interesting video, audio, or a sense of even cartoonesque intrigue.

that must have been my expectation going in too... so low that I was pleasantly surprised with the movie. by no means great, but better than expected!