DTS Vs. dolby Digital

well there's plenty of reasons for that. Receivers for example, aren't usually a year to year purchase. Much like a television, you keep that sucker for several years, if not decades before you upgrade again.

I mean c'mon, my parents just got the HDTV about 2.5 years ago... I don't think we'll be upgrading anytime soon. And the tube downstairs is still good for several more years.

So receivers, those without a DTS decoder, are still very widespread much like non-HDTVs. So its not the tech is inferior since the base is so small, its that getting DTS in the home is not an affordable upgrade for many people. Unlike say... buying a new DVD player for 30 bucks.

Can't say that about your Harman Kardon AC3 5.1 receiver you bought ages ago.

 

sound card with decoder vs without

hey HANSHOT1st (or anyone else that KNOWS)... you seem like just the guy to ask this question...

I got this board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16829120103 ,, the chaintech av710 ,, if you see the specs it doesn't have a built in hardware decoder..

Q.1. Question is.. if I have the optical out from this board to my nearby Yamaha RX-v2600... is the FINAL output from HT speakers the same of vs a comparable board as AUdigy with the same sampling rate and bits that HAS the built in hardware decoders say for dts, Dolby, ac-3 or whatever media source for playback?

Q.2. At that do you consider persons with an audigy outputting dolby to a reciever... shouldn't the reciever have the processors and decoders off ,, a sort of "straight" setting so that the signal doesn't get re-processed???

 

IF it would be comparable you would have to read the spec's. NOW Creative cards Don't do digital very well, meaning most of the time everything is in stereo becasue Creative cards don't have built in ENCODER. So those cards cannot encode 5.1 and send it Spdif to a external reciever. -Not even X-fi. IF your AV710 has the ability to do this then it'll be in the spec's. Creative's are the worst if your into true digital.

 

Detailed specs besides those on the page I put are nowhere to be found... I am NOT looking to encode/record dvd stream on comp, no. It seems you thought I'm taking an input from the HT... no... none of the boards have encoders.. they decode the signals from spdif from the dvd drive ... send it to the board... I have my board connected to optical in on my yamaha.

WHAT I wanted to get to is comentary of the difference of playing a dvd from a computer dvd drive of which the sound card is connected to an input of the reciever.... case being my chaintech card vs a card with hardware decoders built in... and furthermore a perspective of what can be expected on the final output since I wanted to know if there would be any difference considering the reciever has all possible decoders to choose from.... .

 

OH, Now I understand..sorry about that. I would imagine the hardware decoder would be better but it's also dependant on what software your using to play the DVD.

 

The answer is very simple dts licence_decoder_encoder_etc is much more expensive than DD And definitly dts Kicks The CRAP out of DD

 

DTS- I love watching movies that have that DTS/Yamaha piano cut scene.

Its give a much more true, uncompressed sound. Its like the difference between an aac/mp4 file and lame/ogg vorbis. Its between compressed sound, and uncompressed/lifelike.

But because that piano is branded, I wonder if Yamaha had anything to do with the creation of the DTS standard...curious.

 

i personally prefer DTS it is much more superior to DD since there is less compression. but i honestly can't hear a difference between the 2 audio tracks.

You also need to keep in mind that most theatres use either DTS or SDDS for sound, not alot use DD as their audio system since SDDS and DTS are much better for that kind of system.

For those that care, if you really like DD or DTS then i would get the new soundcard by Auzeon Audio since it features both DTS Connect and DDL. now you can play games in full 5.1 dd or dts surround sound as long as your speakers can decode it .

 

There is a new one by Auzentech
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=183439
This card supports alot of surround sound standards..and is fully 24/192. Very nice card indeed, but won't be released until sometime in August..or so we have been told.

 

K im an audio engineer... certified and whatnot.. Definitely DTS is hands down better... no comparison... Dolby Digital compresses its signal 10:1, SDDS uses a 5:1 compression ratio, DTS compression is 2:1... so the clarrity between them is very significant. Its like a mp3 compared to a .Wav file. Audio Engineers can hear the difference... if you have a side by side comparison.. consumers dont know the difference cause most consumers dont know the science behind compression. So would you rather have a your signal squashed 10 times its normal rate or 2 times?

 

This is one of the reasons that these new soundcards have alot of guys excited. They can perform DD and DTS encoding and send it over a digital connections such as Fibre or Coax..this is a trick the X-fi cannot do..I have been watching the HiFi thread for a while and ALOT of guys are waiting to get a audio card that truly supports these standards..

 

most companies that make these DVD discs are too lazy to go the extra mile and put DTS tracks in as it costs money and time or sometimes a DTS mix isnt available and the movie would have to be remixed wich costs even more. back when DVD's were coming out for the first time, the industry agreed ( cant remember wich all companies were involved in the decision making ) that Dolby Digital is going to be the standard for video DVD's as a sound format. the other competitor was MPEG Multichannel ( atleast in the EU area ) wich was mainly used by Sony but it never really took off and Sony ditched the format quite fast. i think i still have a few DVD's that have the MPEG Multichannel track.

as for wich one is better, DTS or Dolby... well ive heard a lot of good DD 5.1 soundtracks in movies and ive also heard several good DTS soundtracks but ive also heard poor ones from both. if a disc has both i usually go with DTS as i find it a lot richer in most cases and theres usually more details.

for some very nice DTS soundtracks check out Gladiator ( the first release, havent heard the new one. especially the scene where Maximus walks into the colosseum for the first time. ), the extended versions of the LOTR films and Blade 2 just to mention a few. ofcourse these releases vary a lot depending on where in the world you live and some of these might not have a DTS track in some countries.

 

I believe that the DD compression algorithm is more efficient than the DTS, so comparing based upon compression ratios alone is foolish. A 10:1 ratio does not necessarily imply that it's 5 times lossier than a 2:1 ratio using a different algorithm. I mean, compare a 128-bit Ogg Vorbis-encoded track to a 128-bit mp3 - there's a noticeable difference, even with the same compression ratio.

It would be much like comparing jpeg compression (using discrete cosine transform) to jpeg2k (discrete wavelet transform) - a 20:1 j2k image is still much better looking than a 10:1 jpg in most cases.

However, I do prefer DTS over DDL. When I compare DDL vs DTS on my Z-5500s over the optical cable, the DTS just seems more precise.

 

Theres DD uses Lossey compression. Mean it takes out physical bits when it compresses the signal. DTS uses Lossless comperssion, were it compresses the signal without loosing bits...so hmm.. gee i wonder the quality between the 2.

 

Err... both DD and DTS compression are lossy. The only difference is that DD is generally about 384-448kbps and DTS is 768k-1.5mbps.

At the very most, audio can be compressed to about 50% its original size while remaining lossless (see FLAC).

The lossless HD audio in Dolby TrueHD is 18mbps, if that's any indication.

 

I'd go with DD. They have been around for a while. I heard HD/Non HD samples and the DD setup was providing better sound than DTS.

 

Dunno about TrueHD but from prior experience, DTS is the better sounding one, while DD is the more widely supported one.
Then again, sound is a subjective thing, so what sounds good to one person may sound bad for another, so definitely try out both first-hand before you cast any decision.