Positive On DTS
Dear Gary: I thought you might like to receive at least one positive letter about DTS. I’ve been looking at the weird Dolby-biased editorials in some other publications by people who should know better than to insist with great hostility that they don’t mind being had. Despite feeling brow-beaten into accepting whatever “Dolby Digital because it’s THE WAY” propaganda studios, manufacturers and Dolby are spooning said hype-slave editors and writers, I noted my student budget and went out and bought a DTS-capable Sony ES, and augmented my existing speaker array with a JBL sub. To me, there is no contest which 5.1 format is superior. DTS is the acceptable compromise on multichannel compression. I will miss PCM LaserDiscs. I find it stupid that we are being forced into a DVD format with mostly backward low-fidelity AC-3 that performs poorer than VHS hi-fi. I do agree that the very best DVD AC-3 titles such as Lethal Weapon 4 and Godzilla benefit from better authoring techniques in terms of image and audio, which admittedly is smoother than it used to be. It still seems to have a veiled presence that no amount of low-rider bass in the LFE channel can obscure. I know much about film scores and I’m a musician, so the effect of a heavily compressed format on the music tracks of a film sticks out immediately as a thin weak degradation of the signal with no dimensionality; for a fast contrast play Bruce Botnick’s vibrantly detailed, wide open, and high impact recording of the Goldsmith score for Air Force One on compact disc, and then compare with the Dolby Digital rendition on LaserDisc and DVD: note the tentative quality of the music track in said AC-3 format, how it gets swallowed by the sound effects. I never use AC-3 on LaserDisc. Dolby Digital overall comes off as an unpleasant harsh screechy equivalent of noise pollution. I’ve heard the format through other equipment than just my own, by the way. I never give credit where it isn’t due. I’m aware that DTS is yet another compromise in the interest of micro-managing storage space. Why are engineers and tech people evidently so enthralled to the anal-retentive problems of conserving space? If it’s a profit issue I’m sure we’d rather pay for product that sounds at least as good as CDs. On DVD I don’t consider it a tragedy if those useless three language channels are dropped. What is this crap? Who needs it? Back to the issue, the sound of DTS Digital Surround LaserDiscs is terrific, with a sense of immediacy which accurately conveys the dimensionality, depth, and impact of the intended sound mix. However it’s arrived at, I don’t notice any drop in sonic quality or flavor when comparing the music tracks of Jurassic Park or Tomorrow Never Dies on DTS with the sound on CD. My entire viewing area is energized by the sound, and the resolution is exceptionally articulate. I don’t sense I’m being faked out with vector-pumped audio tricks as with Dolby Digital. I don’t understand how DTS is considered unimportant or indistinguishable from AC-3, as I’ve read in statements by “experts” many times over, especially when they have access to better components than I will have for a while. The fact that DTS LaserDiscs are being canceled is annoying when I can’t necessarily purchase everything (such as Alien) in advance, all of the time. If there is a future in DTS DVD titles then certainly more studios should commit, i.e., Warners, Fox, Buena Vista etc. The Dances With Wolves DTS disc is really pristine and is simply and easily the only good sounding DVD available (I haven’t seen the few MCA titles yet). Thanks for a no-bullshit publication that seems to encourage readers to find out things for themselves based on accurate information. More of those people should respect that it’s down to their ears and their dollars. Trust no one.
Michael Ware
Editor Gary Reber Comments:
Your perception of the subtleties between DTS Digital Surround and Dolby Digital are in accord with my listening experience. Unfortunately, politics plays a large role in regulating what options will be available to the public. In the case of DTS, I believe that DTS’ technology and approach to high bit-rate mild compression, which operates as lossless whenever possible, is so counter to the low bit-rate heavy data reduction compression espoused by Dolby that DTS is seen as a competitive threat. The industry is so entangled with Dolby that few have the character or independence to acknowledge that another technology or approach could better serve the public with improved performance. This is not simply a matter of a circuit design or other component design innovation that improves the audio performance of a particular product, but goes to the heart of industry standards setting. It is the set of standards to which every consumer electronics manufacturer must adhere in order to make products that perform in accordance with a particular audio and/or video delivery format. That’s serious business. Dolby has succeeded in virtually every instance to be written into consumer audio formats (with the exception of Stereo TV, in which dbx is the standard and analog LaserDisc, in which CBS’ CX noise reduction is the standard). Should DTS topple that preeminence by recognition of superior performance, that would be considered a defeat for Dolby. Magazine editors are sensitive to not wanting to “tick-off” companies they perceive as powerful. An argument could be made that the prevalent pro-Dolby stance is largely a protection umbrella for such editors whose publications are obligated to Dolby licensees for advertising. What we’re seeing post-CES (Consumer Electronics Show) is a migration of equipment manufactures to supporting the DTS format. New receivers, surround processors, and DVD players from the giants of the industry (including Panasonic’s new DVD portable) now feature DTS decoders or DTS Digital Out interfaces. As the public actually gets to experience DTS and come to their own comparative conclusions, as you have, the recognition of superior DTS performance will spread. Dolby knows this and is masterfully attempting to head this movement off. I wanted be surprised if Dolby doesn’t introduce its own version of high bit rate coding in the near future to be competitive. Already Dolby is pushing for DVDs to be encoded at the higher limit of the AC-3 coding, 448 kilobits per second, rather than 384 kbps, that is supported by the IC silicon decoders now in use. AC-3 is supposed to support a data rate of 664 kbps as its maximum capability, but there are no chip sets that will actually support that data rate. Even that data rate is less than half of DTS’ 1.5 megabit per second data rate. And it is data rate processing power that determines how transparent the result will sound. If high data rate processing was not important then why bother at all with high bit rate 24 bit/96kHz and higher processing rates and Meridian Lossless Compression (MLP) advocated for the DVD-Audio format?
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com