Yesterday, I had bobliinds and his lovely wife over to watch LOTR, "U-571" and "Gladiator" in DTS, in comparason to Dolby Digital. My Sony DVD player does not pass the DTS signal, so I wanted to listen for any differences. He brought his DVD player and we plugged it in. I have heard DTS before, and am familiar with it's effects, but not in my home theater setup.

Was there a difference? Yes., very definately, and for the better. But there are some important things I noticed.

The most obvious was an increased sibilance to the entire sound presentation. This should not be an artifact of DTS per se, and it almost certainly had to have originated somewhere else in the conversion to DTS.

Another thing that I heard was that the surrounds were higher in level. This was not just a subjective judgement. I have monitoring meters on each channel for when I do mixes, and the difference could clearly be seen. The level difference was probably around 3db.

The overall mix sound level was also a few dbs higher in the DTS than the Dolby Digital.

The DTS had a more fluid sound presentation, and preserved more of the partials of the voices, instruments and sound effects.

However, I am very "imprinted" with the sound that is heard on a dubbing stage, having heard the original master sound "units" of various films on an almost daily basis, and based on this, I would have to say that the Dolby Digital version was closer to the sound that was originally heard when the film was mixed. The DTS by comparason, while soundng preferable, sounded "enhanced" over what it should have.

Then we performed an extremely interesting comparason. Having performed the restoration of the music for the DVD of "Superman" I have the original 24 bit masters of the music for the film on hard disc. On the DVD, there are several un-cut pieces of music from the score I supplied as bonus material, that are encoded in Dolby Digital. We decided to compare the two.

This was an especially valid comparason since I mixed the music for these tracks in my home theater, and on my speakers. I supplied the DVD authoring studio (Warner Bros Studios, Hollywood) with digital 24 bit files of my mixes to be encoded for the DVD. This is significant as the geneology of the journey from mixing studio to finished DVD is completely known. The mastering engineer was given strict instructions by me to do nothing to these tracks other than encode them into Dolby Digital for the DVD.

So we cued up the bonus tracks on the DVD with their original 24 bit masters residing on my ProTools digital audio workstation. The switching was performed by an 8 channel mechanical (nitrogen filled with gold contacts) relay, so no added electronics were in the signal chain.

Differences? DUHhhhh!! This was not a subtle comparason. The most glaring difference to me was that all the "partials" of the musical instruments were stripped away below a certain threshold, and replaced by what sounds like "sandpaper". This was really bad. The 24 bit masters on the other hand sounded full, rich, and smooth all the way up and down the tonal range, regardless of subtleness of the details. It sounded like music, with no grittiness added. Instruments like trumpets and trombones especially had the subtle detail of their harmonics preserved, where they sounded like "grit" on the Dolby Digital version. Not surprisingly, as the music got denser and louder, the worse the Dolby Digital version sounded when compared to the pristine 24 bit master.

Perhaps an even bigger suprise was that the dynamic range of the Dolby Digital version was severely limited. This was not a subtle difference, but one that was so obvious that I had to ride the volume control of the Dolby Digital to keep the volumes equal on loud passages!

Bobliinds and his wife were able to tell which version was playing 100% of the time: the difference was that obvious.

This comparason is enlightening since we can only hear the finished soundtrack on DVDs and in movie theaters in Dolby Digital or DTS (or sometimes SDDS) - there is no alternative!. And make no mistake, DTS is a lossy medium too: not as bad as Dolby Digital, but nowhere as pristine sounding as the uncompressed masters. I have taken the "sonic penalty" of both of these compressed formats for granted, since I hear their results regularly, and have as a reference the sound of the original masters, but with nothing to compare to, the average listener has no idea how comprimised these formats are. I'm afraid that until motion picture soundtracks are delivered on some future format uncompressed, we are going to have to live with less than optimum (to put it mildly!) sound.

Perhaps Bobliinds would like to chime in on his thoughts about this comparason.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 07, 2003).]

[Phew. FINALLY I got around to getting rid of that extra i in "bobliinds" Jeez, one lousy typo and it follows you around for life.... ]

For my part, this little test that SH and I did was startling. Although I have always tended to prefer the DTS mixes on DVD's, I was in the "six of one, half a dozen of the other" camp as far as comparative quality was concerned. "Different, but a tossup" would characterize my POV.

After yesterday, I will now decisively say that DTS sounds better than Dolby Digital.

In fact, the kinds of differences I heard in our comparisons between DTS & DD reflected many of the characteristics I heard comparing SH's masters with the DVD (although, frankly, the masters vs. DD5.1 differences were MUCH more extreme - see below) That is, the DTS typically had more dimensionality; more "roundness" to individual voices, instruments and effects; more of a sense of "place" acoustics -- which is an illusion in film tracks, of course; and more subtle detail in the timbre of sounds.

Comparing the masters and the DD5.1 DVD is not an experience that HT audiophiles should have. It was just plain heartbreaking and will forever change your level of satisfaction with the audio on commercial DVD's. (Here's another metaphor: You know how after having sex for the first time, you're never satisfied with "making out" in the back of a Chevy? This was like that...)

SH did a SPECTACULAR job refreshing those original score tracks. To hear his ProTools masters in his reference studio is a revelation -- full bodied instrumental timbres; rich, involving surround acoustics; and stunning overall impact from crisp transients to ballsy low end.

Going from that to the DD version was like moving from CD to Dixie-Cups-And-String.

OK. So maybe it wasn't THAT bad; but it was a HUGE difference. Maybe it's more like the difference between FM Stereo and AM Stereo radio. (Comparing only the nature of the difference, NOT the actual quality of the sound, if that makes sense.)

Where the master was big and imposing, the DD was flat and one-dimensional. And the DD5.1 dynamic range compression in the big volume sections of the music was shameful. I suggested loading the gun on the wall of SH's New Mexico-themed studio and taking it over to Dolby Labs. SH wisely talked me out of it.).]

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 07, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 08, 2003).]

I would agree the DTS is better than DD. I have played a number of tracks to hear the difference. My favorites are Blade II, DTS ES puts the DD ES to shame. And rented Reign of Fire once and during the beginning scene when the boy is in the cave and the drops of water are individually occurring in surround, the DTS sound reproduction of these drops was superb and real and the DD made the drops lose their spatial placement.

While at CES I picked up a demo from AIXrecords.com, new recordings in 96Khz/24bit at DD5.1 or DTS. They sound great, even the wife thinks so. The DD/DTS comparison is a little tougher to make out in this instance, but I still find the clarity of the DTS track better defined and separation/imaging of sounds better as a result. At $25 per CD, these new DVD discs play in your everyday DVD, but I am just being patient before I pick up a few more for my listening pleasure.

on some future format uncompressed is anyone working on this? …or are the masses just doomed to continue never realizing what they are missing?

Listening to DVD’s like the Matrix, can bother me If I’m paying attention to scoring in the movie…no one denies the impact of pumping that DVD through a good HT system. But if you take the time to ‘listen’ to sound particularly in the busy overlaid passages, (the big lobby battle) really the ‘sound’ stinks, -there’s a lack of quality to the thumping score which is hard to even notice overlaid as it is with gunfire. It’s fun it’s loud but it not musical.

I had early decided (for me) I much preferred DTS for movies, and purchase this whenever possible, nice to hear 2 “sound guys’ impressions on a comparative listening on that topic.

The DTS by comparison, while sounding preferable, sounded "enhanced" over what it should have.
Could it be due to interactions of psychoacoustics that DTS often tends to be preferred? Due to those ‘enhancements’ faintly creating an illusionary effect of a more ‘lively’ presentation. Crudely beefing up the strangulation of sound occurring due to compression?

Going from that to the DD version was like moving from CD to Dixie-Cups-And-String.
. Hes no gentleman, he aint, to interfere with a poor girl (which one of you is Colonel Pickering and which Henry Higgins?) LIZA [snatching up the [original 24 bit masters], and hurling them at him one after the other with all her force] There are your [original 24 bit masters] And there. Take your [original 24 bit masters]; and may you never have a day's luck with them! Theres a pare of blokes menners f' yer! Eed nowed bettern to spawl a pore gel's hapeniss with jest ole DTS ad DD. Will ye-oo Ah-ah-ah-ow-ow-ow-oo!

(I don’t ever give the impression I’m jealous of others having opportunities for such fasinating audio experiences. Do I? )

Lena:

There are a lot of ways that a soundtrack can be manipulated. These can range from simple equalization, to compression, to use of the "signal optimizers" that FM stations use in order to maximise the "loudness" of their signal. I doubt that DTS goes to the extreme of the last approach, but I did document without a doubt that the surrounds were louder and the overall level was higher in the DTS version. These alone would give the impression of a more "enveloping" soundfield, and more subjective "punch", compared to the Dolby Digital version.

I really wish that everyone on this board could have participated in the comparison that we did between the data compressed version and the original source master. It would have given a greater appreciation to the tradeoffs involved with the compressed formats. I hear those masters on a regular basis, so I am somewhat jaded, but I wish more of you could also have that reference.

I doubt that there will ever be available the uncompressed soundtracks, simply because of the high data overhead involved. That's a shame, especially when spending a lot of money to get the best sound quality possible, to have a comprimised sound in the first place.

If there ever was an argument for the existance of DVD-A and SACD, this was it!


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 08, 2003).]

It is possible that in the very near future with Blu Ray being released, that movie soundtracks could be done without lossy compression. The Blu Ray DVD disc can hold something like 27.? gigs (compared to the red laser 4.? gigs). This could make watching DVDs a whole new experience.
What will the future hold?

I get to be Henry!! Me. Me!! I get to be Henry!!!!

Hear at home and on the air
Dropping partials everywhere
Playing masters anyway they like.

They say that it sounds "Just Swell."
Flute or oboe? Who can tell?
Just one more oscillographic spike.

Why can’t the Dolbys leave their data uncompressed?
They say it’s fine. I’m telling you the Emperor’s undressed.
If our throats were Dolby crunched
Then mankind, one and all,
Would sound just like a poor long distance call.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 08, 2003).]

I wouldn't hold your breath. I doubt that the bitrate could never be high enough to accommodte the high defination video (which they would almost certainly be) and the audio. Uncompressed 24 bit 6 channel 48Khz sample rate audio has a bitrate of about 6.9 megabits per second. That's a good sized chunk of the entire 10 megabit per second data rate on current DVDS for video and audio. High defination video would without question need to be compressed and it's unlikely they would leave the audio uncompressed.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 08, 2003).]

I agree with SH. I think data compression for audio/video is now a fact of life -- as well as a real world necessity. Larger storage media would allow somewhat higher bit rates; but, as SH says, we ain't gonna be seeing/hearing full bitrate A/V in a home format in the near future, if ever.

We can hope, also, that increasing (and increasingly affordable) computing power might inspire companies like Dolby and DTS to develop more sophisticated compression schemes that would reduce the audible degree of loss.

The artifacts that SH and I were hearing in the DD5.1 compression of his masters WAS NOT SUBTLE. In fact, to my ears, it betrayed a fairly primitive compression strategy.

While I'm not aware of the degree that Dolby has improved their compression algorythms over the ten years or so of DD5.1 (SH probably DOES know this), I suspect more could be done.

I do know that compression has gotten way more sophisticated from the late 1980's when this technology started to look viable. It's unfortunately unavoidable when you're throwing away as much as 90% of the data (!) that something gets lost along the journey.

It is ironic that in the Laserdisc days, we actually DID have uncompressed audio, although with ProLogic encoding.

We're taking giant steps BACKWARDS in some ways......

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 08, 2003).]

I don't expect that when it is commercially possible to release a HD DVD with HD non-lossy multichannel sound, it will be done. There just is not (nor will there likely be) the demand for the HD non-lossy multichannel sound.

The available data space on the disk will be used for more features and bonus stuff (i.e. gimmicks) to get the average consumer (including teenyboppers) to part with his or her $$$.

Generally, when I watch a DVD movie with multichannel sound, I do not hold the sound to the same standards of quality as I do when I am playing a vinyl disk, SACD disk or CD disk. If I did, I would just be setting myself up for a letdown.

There is one good thing about having exceedinly low standards or expectations: you are rarely disappointed. So I try not to set my standards too high unless I have just cause to expect the higher standards to be met.

Paul

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 12, 2003).]

Thanks, Soundhound!!!

I'll use you demo file to illustrate to friends that the differences between lo-res lossy compressed formats and high(er) res.

Paul

Soundhound,

Thanks for taking the time to lay out this demo for us. I was suprised by the ammount of discarded material. Again very interesting.

There are lots of ways to compress, so I'm not completely sure what you mean here. There is the old dynamic range compression, lossless data compression and lossy data compression. The first is generally not desirable, the second is not an issue. Lossy compression is a tricky thing - and even DTS reduces the data stream (while cooking the sonics at the same time - yeck) by a lot. I suspect a lossy compression scheme with the 'brains' of DD or better and much greater bandwidth (although still packed) would yield acceptable results.

FWIW my DTS vs. DD impressions are ditto yours - hard for me to really pick a winner, with the caveat that I must admit, I like either pretty well.

A good DVD-Audio setup that can also play the DD/DTS version would be a close approximation, yes?

This question may be out of place on this forum...

SH - Have you tried encoding your own personal masters with Dolby? In other words, is all of the sound getting "lost" at just the Dolby stage or is it a complilation of that plus what happened at other parts in the mastering chain?

I think you even mention this at one point in your post. It would be a really cool comparison if you could encode your files in dolby and then also encode them in DTS. It would give you a really nice comparison point between the two formats.

Ideally, yes. However there can never be any certainty that all versions were handled and processed identically. In the comparison we did listening to the DVD tracks of the movies we watched, there were very marked differences between the DD and DTS tracks that could not possibly have been due to the differences in their compression alone. Also, from a cynical marketing perspective, if people couldn't hear some difference for the money they spent, they would question the expensive of the format.

In the instance of the comparisons to the master I have, I know with absolute certainty how the files were handled - I did the mixing and mastering myself.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 10, 2003).]

At some point I am going to invest in Dolby Digital mastering software to use with my ProTools, but it is a big expense I want to avoid until I have the need for it. I only prepare the master recordings, the compression is done by the people who do the final assembly and authoring of the DVDs. I usually don't give much thought to the effects of DD and DTS: I just hold my nose, look away, and accept the loss in the consumer format.

Having the ability to encode 'in house' might let you figure out how to mix things such that loss is less noticable. At the very least it would be educational, at best you might be able to create a better final product by predicting what the mashers are going to do to you.

In theory this does seem a reasonable strategy. But in practice, it not only is a fast track to sound engineering despair, it is also a great way to create distorted master recordings that will suck big time for all time.

I think it's best to leave the responsibility for good quality Dolby/DTS-compressed sound with the companies that make money on them: DOLBY & DTS. Let them invest their time and R&D money in continuing to improve their processes (which they have done to a greater or lesser extent.)

Better to create the highest possible quality masters so that future technologies might represent them more effectively, rather than distort the masters to compensate for the failings of contemporary technology.

But wait. How about this?!!? We create TWO sets of masters! [Er, well, three, if we include DD AND DTS and the "real" master. Uh, well, FOUR if we include SDDS. .. And so it goes....]

Again, this sounds good in theory; but film studios (and recording companies) have enough trouble just properly storing and keeping track of ONE master. (And do a shockingly poor job of that.) It seems to be more than they can do to manage ONE set of master recordings.


[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 10, 2003).]

Good points. These are all the same arguments folks make in my line of work for writing source code in the clearest possible manner and letting the compiler/linker sort it out. If the code is bloated or slow, the compiler/linker needs to be improved.

In reality (the place I live, next door to theory ) a good coder can write clear code that lends itself to be well optimized by the compilers available. This also has the side effect of allowing us to create marketable products now.

Also, with the current bunch of codecs I'd be surprised if there wasn't some similarity in the data that is selected for heavy compression or discarding.

This may not map well to audio mixing, but I thought it worth mentioning. I'm not an audio engineer, and I don't even play one on TV.

If you listen to the file I posted, the kind of audio that gets hit the hardest is quite clear: very active, dense and loud. If you notice at the beginning, there is not as much activity and the "thrown away" track has less content. That seems to suggest to me that all music and movie soundtracks must be very quiet and simple to escape heavy hatcheting by DD.

Actually, that wouldn't be half bad - we could use more quiet and simple sounding movies

SH, Did you delete the demo? I was busy and did not download, Darn, have to move quicker next time!

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 14, 2003).]

SH just checked in, and saw this. THANK you! And Happy Valentines Day….

Now just need to figure how to turn off l/r channels on these computer speakers, -Altec Lansing and used to be decent (for a computer) but I think the kids have partially blown them, I rarely use them. I appear to have one volume control, which controls both, but will figure something out.

That was so kind for you to mess with linking again, - next time I’ll be sure when I see something to go ahead and capture it for storage when its posted, even if I have to get to it till later

Got it now…again ….many thanks!

Lena:

Gosh...happy Valentine's day to you too!

You might also be interested in these two files too. They show the effects of the use of "dither" in digital audio. Here's the complete post from another forum:

There is one thing that I have not seen mentioned in this discussion: that is the addition of dither to the LSB. This allows you to hear below the theoritical noise floor for a particular bit depth. I actually created a CD containing a series of tests that proves that this works, and does indeed allow the audio to be heard below the noise floor. I have included a couple samples from this CD here. If the dither is of the "noise shaped" variety, you can add an effective 2 bits to the nominal resolution of the digital word. Once you get near and beyond the 16 bit level, the "self noise" of the electrical system, microphone, and acoustic room noise create a natural dither.

The following samples use an 8 bit quantitazation level so that the effects of the quantitization process and of the dither can be clearly heard. For higher bit depths, the effects would be the same, but farther down in level. It consists of a short "excitation" of a 24 bit digital reverb, which was quantitized to the 8 bit level, with and without noise shaped dither. All processing was done in the digital domain.

Sample with noise shaped dither

Sample with no dither

Notice in the dithered example how the reverb tail can be clearly heard to fade BELOW the "hiss", which is the dither noise at the LSB level. The example without dither cuts off abruptly as soon as the level of the reverb tail reaches the limits of the noise floor for 8 bits, which is 48db. This abrupt cut-off was the reason some early CDs sounded like the low level details "fell off into a black hole" - dither was not in common use when digital audio CDs were first introduced. It is now routine practice to use dither in all recording and processing of digital audio. Some companies like Sony (with their "SuperBit Mapping" CDs) use noise shaped dither to increase the audible signal to noise range, allowing a 16 bit CD to have the effective resolution of an 18 bit recording.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 14, 2003).]

SH,

Thank you again, just picked these up. Had never paid attention to ‘dither’ before. (what it was etc).
Somehow I think it was in my personal handbook as, - dither added = dither is bad. Since I had never looked at this subject at all. And if you think like me, - the word ‘dither’ just sounds bad…..if asked to guess without knowing the word has a negative connotation 'ring' to me. Do you want your music rock steady or do you want it to ‘dither’ around?
Now I’ve logged dither as manipulation that benefits the final product.

Can I ask a question, which proves my total ineptitude on many subjects? I was thinking of posting this under its own topic header, but had hesitated since its such a ridiculous question I hated to embarrass myself that badly in public…(although when did that ever stop me most days… ) So I will try and sneak it in here, (some damage control) for any who might have thoughts on the subject.

I was contemplating the fact that my mains (L & R) are so much more capable than my matched center (same line. nice setup..but…). Has anyone taken a 3rd main turned it on its side…(I told you it was a crazy thought) and used it for a center? I know that regards the Beethoven’s I am talking about a direct-radiating straight array, which would give you your tweeter on your left, mids centered and woofer on far right. Would the increase in center capabilities be negated by how off-axis your sound would be coming from a Beethoven laid on it side (which was never intended for such a setup).

Don’t fall out of your chair too hard laughing at the strange ways my mind can work. But I am frustrated by the fact that my very nice center Maestro, is really not as good a speaker as the Beethoven’s, when I have SO much information being routed through the center channel when spinning DVD’s for HT.

The only thing that you would compromise tuning a speaker meant for L/R use on it's side would be that of dispersion. The center speaker's dispersion is optimised for sideways mounting. They usually have the d'appolito arrangement where the tweeter is in the center, between two "woofers". Now, if you can find a speaker intended for main L/R use that has this driver arrangement, (or has a single "co-axial" driver) this might not be as much an issue, but you would have to talk with the manufacturer to see if there are any other considerations specific to their speaker. Of course you can always try putting one of your current L/R speakers on it's side and see if the dispersion suffers, and if it sounds good to you, then you may be able to use one that way.

SLL,

I have a couple of friends that use 3 identical speakers for the front. One has Paradigm studio 40's all around, which for multi-channel music sound fantastic. He has the 1 in the center on a stand in front of his RPTV. The other one has ML speakers, unsure of the model but they stand about 5 to 6 feet high, he has 3 of those across the front with a perforated screen in front of the center speaker. I feel if it is possible to do it I think you wouldn't regret it. But if you never hear it you wouldn't miss it! Right?
Me, I am not able to do this now so I will stick to the center speaker I have, but I now have a contact that got me a great deal on some more Paradigms (ie:below cost!!!) and am going to much larger speakers for my surrounds. I think it will make a big difference on multi-channel music.

------------------
m-mmeyer
GO TWINS
My DVD's

[This message has been edited by m-mmeyer (edited February 15, 2003).]

For HT use, you are right - a perforated screen is preferrable, and it is indeed the very configuration of all dubbing stages. It solves the problem on having the three speakers at equal height, among other things. Ideally, such a screen should be motorized (or movable) so that it is out of the way of the speakers when listening to music however. All perforated screens attenuate the high frequencies to some degree (some are better in this regard), and the screen itself can act as an interfering boundry to the sound from the speakers. With a motorized screen and three identical front speakers, you would have an ideal setup for both cinema and multi-channel music.

Well, at least you guys did not fall out laughing too hard. I’m trying to figure out how to approach my husband. “Um, I was just wondering if there is some way,,,,,just maybe,,,,,,,(smiles sweetly),,,,,,(makes sure she just fed him lobster),,,,,,we can take one of my two vinnea’s, turn it on its side and temporarily rig it to hang just over the top edge of the 60” LCD screen to see how it sounds,,,,,,140 pounds isn’t that difficult is it?,,,,,,,,(beams at him).”
Think it will work?!

Yes, my center is currently d'appolito, and the Beethoven’s, would look (passable) on its side (except a heck of a size for a center) with grill on, with an extra 2-3 inches on one end of flat wood beyond the grille (normally the base when upright). IF dispersion turned out not to be an issue, I would be willing to do this! (if the quality increase warrented). The maestro is the largest center VA makes. (I’d have to research other manf, trying to match the sound to the VA’s in a larger center config). (unless VA could fab me a custom center Beethoven, naw they wouldn’t would they? I could call!).

Since the display here is 60” LCD RP, (vs a FP with a screen) the only methods are: literally hang it from the ceiling at the top edge of the LCD, or have 2 floorstanders to L of the screen, one R, with one of the L’s pulling center duty.

I found a view of one without its grill,,, http://www.soundsperfection.co.uk/vienna.html
looking at it (in theory) I really don’t know what that array on its side would sound like. Right now my husband hung the maestro center without my input, and he hung it too high over the back center of the LCD (and its prob. 50 pds). He theorized since its back from the front plane of the display, - too low it would radiate from below and bounce off the back of the display losing energy. But he gave it far too much clearance. Which reduced my front soundstage, it really (has) to come down to bring it more in line with the L/R. I will never have the 3 (in this room) on the same height to floor plane, wish I could but it is just not possible. Right now the center is back behind the (distance to listener) plane of the LR’s and much higher. If I could work a Beethoven across the front center he would have to bring the DTL plane of the center forward flush with top of the screen simply to be able to fit the cabinetry of the larger speaker in that corner, bringing it more in line with the l/r’s. (and that’s a force for him (I could not get him too with the maestro) which would benefit me acoustically. The question is would I gain more in range and soundstage than I would lose due to dispersion.
(I may never pull this one off, but can have fun trying.

forgive guys its been such a two weeks I'm slightly overboard tonight contemplating how to improve my favorite pasttime, - for a total change of pace.

Not THAT would be a novel marital spat!! I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear a "disagreement" about soundstage!. Does Texas recognize disagreements about soundstage as grounds for divorce?

You might try two centers, one on each side of the screen. I've heard setups like that that sounded very nice.

Of COURSE: Texas is a no-fault state. So it’d be “Judge, it’s not my fault, I care about sound across the fronts more than he does!” …..Just kidding as usual its my fault it turned out too high….I was not here when he placed the shelf he built for it. And because he had already ix-nayed my ideas to bring it forward flush with the front edge of the screen (as an overkill shelf-depth for looks in that area) (and one of my arguments for that setup was…if the grill’s not flush it will radiate and effectively some sound with that speaker set back will end up being bounced off the back of the display. Since I worried about that issue so much, - He laid it high to avoid my issue while I was out, - without wiring it and listening. SO now the center’s 4 feet back from the L/R plane and additionally too high. The speakers had a better stage when an open rack was sitting left to the screen as a temp setup with the center speaker on the top shelf of the left axis rack. That’s why I even thought of placing two B’s to the left, it would be the equivalent of what we had before the display stand was built, (but really that would prob look stranger, - than boxing the display round with 3 Beethoven’s. He’s already agreed with me center needs to come down, - and if I could talk him into the larger Beethoven, - cabinetry would force him to hang it flush and bottom edge at top of screen, - alleviating somewhat two of current problems.

The double center would be something I would think about, but the corner where this all resides has a shorter leg to the right of the display before an opening, and the room is [tiny] 4 floorst. across the front would not fit (they already think I've lost it fitting two. Therefore my passing thought, -could I hang one B side-laid for a center, which sounds overwhelming but if you think about it …truly flush with the display,..it ends up being just a display surrounded by cabinetry. A setup many HO’ have when placing a large screen display into a wall of exsisting built-ins. (Hard to visualize how it would really look if it could improve sound and be acomplished) And you just can't ask your husband to hold 150 pds over his head sideways here there and yonder to 'hear' it.

goodness, i can't remember what i read. 1st, i'd just like to say...in response to SLL, you are a spark of crystal on these shores. i have been to all of sony's and others schools for learning data compression systems (NEC,ATT,Panasonic,etc.). and without going to far there, i must say...digital is here to stay, that being said, you must understand, that if its done in the digital domain...it will always have an encoding process. simply put; i hope, this means a quantifying means of 'looking' at an analogue signal and making 'digits' out of it. digital is the means of using 'packets' of information in some usable means to eventualy 'reproduce' ...something that happened in 'real' time. errrr, if one uses ones and zeros to represent ...music or pictures...or god, god bless her, then one is re-representing that entity with ...numbers; and numbers can never ever give us at the end result what was first put in 'there'. MPEG, itself, is a packet of information that uses an incredible amount of error correction, both pre-signal & post-signal...that attempts to presume what happened in the past. true, even a 35mm picture of abe lincoln cannot give you what he really looked like...but it is so close...because it simply catches the 'light' from around him...noise n all. a digi. snap would be oh-so-clean...but it takes into account things that the eye does not see. to many it 'cleans up' the image', to one who was there and saw where he was standing...he/she might say something like...wait a minute...that vase in the background was barely visible...the wart on his chin...was not so pronounced. digital systems are very good at what they do. they elimanate noise, give us good clean vision...or sound. the reality is...when i was at the bar, there was noise, when abe's friend's were at the photo shoot, there was light falloff...his wart could not be seen so clearly. digital is here to stay. my bosses at cnn yell at me because of artifacts and other things that were not present on our analogue transmission systems...but now we get ...10,12,18 signals on a channel that once only could transmit one. ever watched our 'video phone'...what a technical 'joke'. but i can fly into kosovo with one and set it up and give you the news in 18 hours...the analogue system took days...paperwork...30 pieces of heavy equipment. as an old engineer...i hate digital...as a new waver...it is a blessing. go ask neal young. it is a blessing and a curse. i wish i still had my old 2 inchers from my days as a studio engineer...just couldn't put em in my backpack. rock is dead,
long live rock n roll.
i think i lost sight here...so many comparisions, so little time. i do love questions as yours...keeps me young and keeps me alive. as a postscript to sum it up. in the new 'media', analogue is dead. we now (except for the studio/mastering people) have to live with the'new age'...and the new age media is...digital...digital is numbers. i would now like to refer you to the writings of Langstrom and Niels Borr.
after that, go see a live play and watch a good live band at your local dark horse saloon.
ok, one last ps. their is two places that hold out: 1. the reviving analogue music mastering studios
2. FILM! movies just can't get better here. except for content, which is so much better now than when i grew up. let's keep the oldest analogue signal alive. Light (pps.: the grandfather of film went blind in the 1900's...looking at..the sun)

to charlie, just re-read your statement above. well, i am an audio/video 'enghaneer' and play one on tv,and just gotta say, most of them don't know half of what you know. am retiring in two weeks but youse guys keep me young...again. i helped mitso...whatever...develope their new digital format...well, not the language...the real estate. that little button at the front of a digital panasonic camera...selects frame rate, i did that! wow! we still didn't buy their cameras (they were gonna sue us). and why do we use sony? i hope no one reads this who knows me. cause...it was in the 'best interest' to stay with sony! i almost said why...and cannot in this world of suits. oh yeh, the sony's gggaa-rate! to bad tandberg doesn't make digital cameras (they probably do, i'm not allowed to find out).
postscripe: i know i'm in the south, SH, but is that the 'real' bob lind (with only one i)?

------------------
t higg

oops, bob linds i mean

Except the fact that there were no 35mm cameras. Good digital cameras don't record in compressed format, they merely stream the pixel data to the storage medium for later manipulation, often in 36-48 bit depth per pixel. There are of course issues, and the never ending quest for packing data tighter and tighter is seemingly limitless, but loss due to compression isn't a requirement of digital storage.

No I'm not the REAL Bob Lind. Sorry to disappoint you.

I am the real Bob Lindstrom. That used to mean something in the 80s to computer game fans. Means nothing now, though.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 16, 2003).]

will the real bob linds please stand up.

That used to mean something in the 80s to computer game fans
What was your expertise in that time. Since you mentioned thought I would ask? (a non-80's computer game fan so cuse my lack of)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by soundhound:

The mastering engineer was given strict instructions by me to do nothing to these tracks other than encode them into Dolby Digital for the DVD.
_________________________________________

my experience with mastering engineers is that unless you stand there the whole time...with a gun....he ain't gonna hear one word of such instructions.

still, the direct comparison of your master mix vs the DD 'finished' product underscores why i've always liked dts better. more information = better sound.

besides, as i've said many times before, i'm no fan of dolby labs.

I used to write columns about interactive entertainment for A+ Magazine and OMNI Magazine. I was also Editor-in-Chief of a couple of computer magazines.

Left journalism and became a creative director/designer in videogames for stuff like Earthsiege, Betrayal at Krondor, Front Page Sports, Mask of Zorro and, later, (non-game) Disney Magic Artist.

But it's been so slow lately, I guess I should have stayed in journalism.

A lot of time to listen to my 950 though...

Journalism …Editor-in-Chief ……I have to get a better spell-ck.

Lena:

Leave the spell checker at home. All the copy editors I ever worked with told me I was one of the few writers they edited that could actually spell correctly.

NOT being able to spell is almost a sign of writing professionalism.

PS -- I did my little "Why Can't The English" parody just for you. I thought the Eliza schtick was great.

[This message has been edited by boblinds (edited February 19, 2003).]

The efficiency of the codec will have a big role in that, of course. Take the example of a 256 kbps mp3 compared to uncompressed 16 bit PCM at the same or a bit higher, or even double bit rate.

IMO Dolby Labs has worked a small miracle given the bandwidth they were allowed to occupy in order to become the standard encoder. Ever wonder what DTS would sound like at DD bitrates? I heard DTS wasn't able to even get there and so DD won almost by default. Dunno if it's true.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited February 19, 2003).]

PS -- I did my little "Why Can't The English" parody just for you. I thought the Eliza schtick was great.

I am honored!. When I read what I was missing, it felt appropriate to toss slippers.
Wish Outlaw had time to come up with a little side job of a DVD disc media, -backwards compatible to current lasers, which would hold SH’s 24 bits (uncompressed) per track plus the video.
…if I can conceive it, simple for the them to come up with it.!

“Though standalone DVD Video promises clearer images and sound, a convenient CD-sized design, and added features like subtitle language options, the new format faces numerous hurdles including lack of available titles, cost, the need to add expensive home theater components, and the lack of recording capability, according to the study. Therefore DVD Video is not a compelling replacement for a VCR.”
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 5, 1997

Can’t wait for that next…”not compelling replacement”. !

DVD as it stands now would actually do it - you just wouldn't have room for much video. The uncompressed data rate is around 6.9 Megabits per second, which would fit in the 10 Megabit capability of current DVD.



------------------
The Soundhound Theater

on the subject of dolby vs speilberg:

DD: DTS:
448 kbps 1.5 mbps (3.35 times)

DD EX matrixed DTS ES discrete
surround back ch surround back ch

no audio cd DTS CD

DD/Meridian (dvd-a) DTS CD plays on std
forces consumer dvd player
to buy new hdwe.

DD concert video DTS concert video
too much compression hell freezes over

16-20 bit-48k 16-24bit-48/96k

if it weren't for dts and sacd, i shudder to think how long it would be before we saw any improvement over ac-3.
just one man's opinion.

You are aware of the fact that DTS uses half it's usual data rate on DVDs, aren't you? If this were not so, it would crowd out some of the bit pool used for video.

DD= sucko DTS= sucko, but less suckage

------------------
The Soundhound Theater

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 19, 2003).]

quote from b.bass:my experience with mastering engineers is that unless you stand there the whole time...with a gun....he ain't gonna hear one word of such instructions.
i don't believe there are that many like that. i was a video master/edit engineer...ok, a looong time o go... but i enjoyed what i did...maybe it's cause ...nahhhh. granted, we mastered on 2" quads...my earliest were the awesome ampegs (dange...were it ampex?...mst be the vodka)
the 1200 & 2000. the 2000 was just so clean an editor. later, doing shows and arty things...they had...oh dear; RCA, TR-50's. i did all the usual maintenance for the four used in production. come in at six..power up big things...go get coffee..stand around or find cleaning stuff and alignment tapes. tubes should be settled by now...at least one hour. and on it goes. you had make sure the right head was cuttin in on the right field..no, the first field...if ya misaligned at this step...well, during the real edit...your gonna see the kingston trio make some real errors as their colors go into a black hole...congrats..ya jst blew an edit and ya gotta go back the master anddd back up to the previous edit and lay all that down again...this can be a real drag if your just doing audience shots for segways to thenext piece. we'ed try for at least 30 minutes of the show ready by the end of a day...sometimes a whole hour came of it!
but...i listened to the producer in how he wanted a piece to transit...had to, had 4 machines backed-timed and rolling...and the timer on each was a mechanical counter...the timer wuz me!..and it took .6 seconds for an edit to take from the time your finger made the button 'click'.
but... i cared. so did the producer...who stood right there with me all day to make sure he liked it to!

------------------
t higg

sorry for the apparent encryption of my post. strange.

my point was that with no competition (as dolby is used to having none, being the 8 million ton gorilla), the state of the art would be worse than it is and would stay that way for a much longer time.

meridian ran to dolby with their lossless packing scheme and suddenly it was adopted as the system to use for dvd-a, despite other available methods that we'll never hear about.

is it back compatable to cd? no. will it play on a dvd player? no. is it being promoted? no. dolby loves status quo. it's lucrative. the only push dvd-a gets is from fear of the competing format.

the only 2 existing patents to do with digital bass management were both patterned around dolby's ancient system that was designed for theaters. how well is it working out? is it adaptable to dvd-a/sacd?

i just think that dolby (who have sewed up digital tv and movies) doesn't care much about audio. it's frustrating to me that the dominant force is the inferior product.

we waited years too long for dvd-a because they couldn't watermark the software with a system that hackers couldn't beat, then they released it with the ridiculous analog out format with no bass management. that was only because of sony's pressure, or we'd still be waiting.

i'm glad for sacd, dts and the outlaw icbm. that's why i support all 3 as much as i can.

thigg: sorry, my friend. i was only being general. there are good mastering engineers, to be sure. especially in the analog days that you mention. you HAD to care. you had to be good at it, too. i don't know what it is with digital. seems like lesser talent can get by through digital machinations (witness hip-hop with samples, no musicians, heck, you don't even have to be able to sing). the fact that the release of dark side of the moon in hi-rez multi-channel is so anticipated... a 30 year old record...and no new material that's been written exclusively for the format instead, says a lot about the situation to me.

sorry for the rant.

The world would be a lot better without either Dolby Digital or DTS - they're both lossy compression schemes, and nothing can change that. To hear uncompressed audio, the only options for consumers are SACD, DVD-A, CD and ironically, ProLogic on Laserdisc. Of course DTS sounds better than DD, but it still can't match an uncompressed track. That's too bad. Perhaps if more research had been done on providing uncompressed audio on DVD, things could have been different.

------------------
The Soundhound Theater


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 19, 2003).]

16 bits x 12 khz x 2 = 384 kbps

vs.

256 kbps mp3

Bitrate isn't everything. All digital formats are, by definition, lossy in the true sense. It's more, IMO, a matter of what and how much to toss, rather than blindly loving high bitrates. DTS isn't really a very sophisticated encoding algo.

I suppose if you look closely enough analog is really lossy too, it's just harder to exactly quantify how.

There is alot at play here. DSOTM was to be released on DVD-A but Sony offered to do the mastering and EMI agreed. I'd love to know what happened behind closed doors for that one. Personally, I'm really disappointed in this turn of events being an adopter of DVD-A. I'm going to have to look for a universal player.

There are some small labels (AIX Records, for example) that are recording and producing material specifically for the hi-rez format. I'm a Yes fan and their last release, Magnification, was recorded at 96/24 and 192/24. It is really well done.

I may be being somewhat of a snob, but is there alot of music being made today that should be coming out in hi-rez?



[This message has been edited by DollarBill (edited February 20, 2003).]

________________________________________

charlie: what do you think about analog vs digital in a pre/pro?
supposing you had a universal player with good dacs.
_________________________________________

Dbill: a company called heads up produced spyro gyra's 'in modern times' on sacd. it was done with the format in mind from the start and is truly a masterpiece of a production, imo. they've signed hiroshima to do a sacd multi disc to be released soon.

from the discussions i had with dvd-a people 5 years ago, they plan to mostly remix existing masters because it's 'more cost effective' than paying for full production of a disc from scratch and hoping anyone cares to buy it.

that's why i switched to the sacd camp. though, i must admit, i envy you the 'fragile' album in multi channel hi rez.

sony's strongest selling point is using dsd to archive as it can be easily converted to any digital format, past, present and future (1 is divisible into any number).

hmmmmmm...i wonder what master tapes EMI has that might be worth something??? remember wacko jackson bought the mccartney/lennon library in the 80's and it became part of the huge deal he signed with sony soon afterward.

tommy lee jones in MIB "...i'm gonna have to buy the white album again."

Obviously I'd rather a universal player without DACs - pipe the data via a digital interface, but if that wasn't (as it currently isn't) an option I'd rather have an analog multi-channel preamp (not really a processor at that point) and full range speakers all around.

If I went with the 950 right now I think I'd do like someone (Merc ?) here did and also insert a Sony analog preamp between 950 and amps, via the unity gain bypass input. Then tie the DVD-A into the Sony.

It's my understanding that, although the data for the 6th channel in DTS-ES(?) is in fact a discrete stream the 'center' (6th channel) info is ALSO matrixed into the surrounds for backward compatibility with older DTS decoders. This leaves the obvious problem that an ES decoder must remove the matrixed material from the surrounds, but the matrixing was done pre-compression, so the common signal still in the surrounds after compression will almost certainly not be the same as the 6th channel data after compression. This seems like a great chance to get some artifacting, given the right set of signals.

I can see the marketing advantage, and also the clear difference in trade-offs, but it would be hard for me to love either solution.

Part of good engineering is understanding and staying within design constraints. I wonder how DTS would sound at 450 kbps or what Dolby could cook up for 1.5 mbps.

Very likely the superiority of DTS would cease to exist. Frankly, I'm surprised Dolby hasn't simply hit back by increasing the data rate of DD. Maybe they don't think they need to, given their lock on the market.



------------------
The Soundhound Theater

It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that the AC-3 codec tops out at 640 kbps. Whether this is a real limitation or a limit placed on some arbitrary attribute, like staying within a certain decoder bandwidth/decoding MIPS power window I have no idea.

Even if the latter, yes, you're probably right, AC-4 won't see light of day until the market demands if history is any indicator.

wow, was supposed to rain and turned out a nice day...took Odessius out & ran into a coupla HOG guys n' so we rode a while...felt realy good!
hey, i went a few years ago to see what-his-name, you know, the other half of Pink F. outside arena...fairly large. they had a new surround P.A. concert was very long,covering every darn album they made. my favorite being 'animals' and oh my god! it was the perfect music for all their stuff. when DSOTM started...well...i think everyone wanted to just cry..they did quite a bit of it...even my least favorite..'money' was really served up well by the system...and it was totally clean!
when the dogs started 'barkin' during 'animals'...they went from stage left, gradually shifting to the left...the sheep came in from the rear n over our heads to the front! course when they did the other album...'we don't need no education'...all the skin heads appeared from nowhere...i don't think they understood whut that album's about.

SH: "I'm afraid that until motion picture soundtracks are delivered on some future format uncompressed, we are going to have to live with less than optimum (to put it mildly!) sound."
hey, why don't they widen the film a teensie bit and...modulate 5 or more channels of audio...with...light! whut a novel and new idea for me.
ya know, it's always so...weird (?) to hear the original of any format...and then hearing it back after one puts it through the 'washin' machine. especially if what you've done is record somebody live. not that i feel bad after that, exactly opposite..like havin a baby kinda. still...you always end up wishing everyone heard it like you! (digital or analogue) analogue gets muddy if ya layer it to thick and digital simply ...changes it...for ever.
the 96/24 is really good,tho. who earlier said they had or heard some 192/24? i'd like to hear that!

Or maybe coat the edge of the film with magnetic oxide and record the soundtrack right there? Nah.......



------------------
The Soundhound Theater

Bosso,

I think we already discussed this but it bears repeating. Fragile is fanstastic! Close to the Edge is next. There is supposedly a Denon univeral player coming out soon that bears a look. I'm a casual Spyro Gyra fan so thanks for the tip on the multichannel release. Who's on the bass?

________________________________________

OK... ya got me...i'm lookin' into the denon (dv 2900?). i just GOTTA hear 'heart o the sunrise'!

scot ambush plays azola basses (sounds like fretless throughout). there's a mention of moses graphite, too. the bass is mixed perfectly and he plays some really good lines. of course, i'm using the low freq scheme i've devised (which, hopefully i'll be able to elaborate on soon) so it's bass player's heaven for me.

ya just couldn't let go of the yes dig, could ya? i just bought a copy. c'mon denon....SHIP.

[QUOTE] ...I'd rather have an analog multi-channel preamp (not really a processor at that point) and full range speakers all around.
__________________________________________

i began discrete multi-channel life as a fan of the ITU standard, but have since changed my mind.

i've found that, in tests, the room mode excitment of 7 low freq drivers is a mightmare. placement is fixed with 5 full range cabinets, so moving them is not an option.

soon, i can detail the evolution of the process to it's current point. i'd certainly appreciate your comments. BTW, what player are you using?

Oh man, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that to you. Maybe I'll pickup Spyro and we'll be even.