Dolby vs. DTS mastering on same disc

[JohnN]

Please allow me to stray a little from the immediate topic here if you will, as it concerns Dolby.

I've been trying to figure something out here. Dolby has trademarked "MLP Lossless". So they state. But I've never read anywhere that Meridian ever sold or gave up the rights to MLP, or "Meridian Lossless Packing" that they invented. Dolby has made TrueHD synonymous with MLP and have stated so.

So, uh, "wot's the deal"?

Since Meridian Audio is primarily a manufacturer of high-end home theater hardware, they licensed MLP to Dolby Laboratories for management. Dolby handles further licensing of MLP to DVD player manufacturers and software publishers who incorporate it into their DVD encoding programs.
https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/meridian-lossless-packing-mlp/
https://professional.dolby.com/tv/dolby-truehd/

 

[mandrix]

Ah. Of course I knew Dolby licensed the tech, but I did not know Meridian had turned over further licensing chores to Dolby.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[marcb]

There's no particular technical reason why one should sound better than another. They are different codecs and they allocate bits differently to achieve much the same effect. But of course it's possible to screw anything up. Certainly I own surround mixes in either that sound great.

It is also somewhat difficult to compare them fairly at home. This document remains the best I know of to explain why.

The whole 'Dullby' thing is a stupid myth

Disagree. Neither sounds great, but all other things equal, DTS sounds better than DD.

 

[ssully]

Yes there is. They are both lossy codecs, and DD on DVD runs at a third the bit rate of full rate DTS on DVD.

Same old same old simplification.

Please read the link I posted.

"Common sense" isn't always all it's cracked up to be, when it comes to digital audio and perceptual codecs.

'Disagree' all you want, folks, but good luck trying to set up a fair test to prove your belief is true..

 

[marcb]

Same old same old simplification.

Please read the link I posted.

"Common sense" isn't always all it's cracked up to be, when it comes to digital audio and perceptual codecs.

'Disagree' all you want, folks, but good luck trying to set up a fair test to prove your belief is true..

But common sense often beats a rationalized, amusingly dated narrative pretending to be some sort of definitive statement.

I especially loved this bit of equivocating nonsense: "DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'.

 

[JohnN]

But common sense often beats a rationalized, amusingly dated narrative pretending to be some sort of definitive statement.

I especially loved this bit of equivocating nonsense: "DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'.

DTS mostly preferred. Regarding Tull, @Plan9 told me/us DTS was good.

 

[ssully]

But common sense often beats a rationalized, amusingly dated narrative pretending to be some sort of definitive statement.

I especially loved this bit of equivocating nonsense: "DTS's supporters claim that it is superior to Dolby's system because it uses a higher bitrate and less aggressive compression scheme. These two facts are essentially irrelevant in determining whether DTS is 'better' than Dolby Digital: neither automatically equates to higher sound quality. The quality of both systems stands or falls on the effectiveness of their respective compression and perceptual coding systems. Both systems use extremely effective coding systems. As both systems are based on completely different technologies, and rely on human perception, there is no technical or scientific means to determine which is 'better'.

I'm glad you love it, since it happens to be true.

 

[Owen Smith]

I'm glad you love it, since it happens to be true.

We're talking about a factor of 3 on the bit rate with lossy codecs. That's huge. If we were discussing 192kbps with one codec vs 256kbps with another you'd have a point. It takes a decade or two to improve codecs so that things look or sound as good at half the bit rate, yet DD and DTS are codecs from the same era so are likely to be similarly efficient. That's the way technology advances, you wait 15 years and 2 or 3 video codecs come out at once with similar performance. None of this stuff is developed in a vacuum, the state of the art at the time is know to a number of people.

 

[ssully]

You seem to believe that bitrates 'behave' linearly, in psychoacoustic terms. You also may think bits are used the same way by the two technologies. And you may believe that if an artifact is audible in a single channel it must be audible in multichannel playback. None of that is necessarily true.

I suggest again that you carefully read the article I linked to.

It will also help to appreciate the factors that would have to be addressed in order to isolate audible difference arising only from their different lossy compression schemes. In a blind test, of course.

 

[wiredsol]

I find the exact opposite with my movie collection. DTS is always crisper cleaner sounding than Dolby. I use Dolby for music because it’s a softer warmer sound.

Typically, there is noticeably deeper bass in my system with DTS

 

[marcb]

Typically, there is noticeably deeper bass in my system with DTS

But is it accurate bass??

 

[fizzywiggs41]

I much prefer DTS over DD on the DVD Steely Dan Two Against Nature
Live , Plush TV Jazz-Rock Party In Sensuous Surround Sound.

I know in the early years of DD most of my DVD'S sound underwhelmed, when compared to DTS . I think DTS (seemed to me anyway) , we're willing to pay far more attention to better surround sound vs. Dolby Digital.

Now i do prefer DTS overall but i also have DD only DVD'S for music, that ive learned to accept. Well there isn't a choice actually.

I'm not certain, maybe someone can chime in , but I was under the impression that both Dolby True and DTS MA , are relatively the same for sound quality .

 

[Owen Smith]

I'm not certain, maybe someone can chime in , but I was under the impression that both Dolby True and DTS MA , are relatively the same for sound quality .

They're both lossless, so yes they are equivalent in sound quality terms.

 

[wiredsol]

They're both lossless, so yes they are equivalent in sound quality terms.

Dolby is not lossless. Simply do a Google study. The facts are easily available

 

[wiredsol]

But is it accurate bass??

yes

 

[boxhead]

Dolby is not lossless. Simply do a Google study. The facts are easily available

Dolby TrueHD is indeed lossless.

https://professional.dolby.com/tv/dolby-truehd/#gref

 

[Owen Smith]

Dolby is not lossless. Simply do a Google study. The facts are easily available

Dolby True HD is lossless. It is MLP from DVD-Audio with added meta data.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

An interesting experience comparing dts 5.1 surround to un-compressed 5.1 surround...
I've done a lot of upmixing in my time. One good example is I've taken all 14 of Chisato Moritaka live performance/music video DVD's & converted to 5.1. They start off as un-compressed 16/48 on the DVD. The audio quality is impeccable. Good tonal balance, crisp & detailed, no brick walling.

Work flow is: demux audio & video. The video stays as one complete MPEG 2 file, no transcoding. The audio starts as one complete WAV file & upmixed in 32 bit float in AA 3. When finished it is exported as 16/48 & converted to DTS in Surcode at full bit rate 1509.75 kbit/s. The audio & video are then re-muxed in DVDLab pro with chapters, menus added. Burn a disc. Yes I can play by file on Oppo or VLC but then gaps between VOB files & no chapters or menus.

So then. I can play the uncompressed surround files from my PC via Delta 1010 to my main system or play the DTS disc in my Oppo. They both plug into my Zektor switcher and very easy to level match. So I punch number one button on the Zektor & I'm hearing the DTS. I hit numbah two input on the Zektor & I'm listening to the uncompressed 5.1 audio.

And the difference is: zero. The DTS audio is indistinguishable from the uncompressed 32 bit audio. Completely transparent. You could blind test me A/B all day & I couldn't pick out which is which. I did this evaluation maybe 10/12 years ago when I admit my ears were better. But my impression remains the same today. I don't do DTS on audio projects today because it's just more direct to simply save as a FLAC file. However DTS is more video compatible. You can't author a proper DVD/Blu-ray with FLAC as the audio. My main point being that DTS deserves a better rep than it gets for being a quality audio format.

Asa side note, I also added a DD track of the stereo original at 448 kbit/s. How does it compare to the DTS? Well, drastically different since one is stereo out of front speakers only & the other is surround. Also the DD version is about 10dB lower than the DTS. I know this has to do with the dialogue normalization thing. I tried to work around it once but it seemed like some kinda science fair project to get it right. That's another reason why I liked DTS, it simply came out as you expected. I felt the need to add the DD audio just for the sake of completeness.

 

[Owen Smith]

And the difference is: zero. The DTS audio is indistinguishable from the uncompressed 32 bit audio. Completely transparent.

Indeed, full rate DTS is damn nigh transparent and indistinguishable from lossless.

My main point being that DTS deserves a better rep than it gets for being a quality audio format.

The trouble is a lot of DTS on DVD is half rate, which while considerably better than Dolby Digital is not close to transparent and can be audibly distinguished from lossless. I haven't seen any DVD labels that state whether their DTS is full rate or half rate so it's under the radar.

 

[ted_b]

Dolby is not lossless. Simply do a Google study. The facts are easily available

I assume by now you want that brazen comment back. You may not have noticed that Owen was referring not to the original discussion (DD vs DTS) but to their more recent codecs ( Dolby True HD vs DTS HD MA) which are, in fact, lossless.