[QUOTE]Originally posted by D'Arbignal:
bossobass,

With your nom de plume, I'm not surprised that you prefer DTS. DTS is famous for having "accidentally" boosted the bass in its soundtracks, resulting in the psychoacoustic phenomenon that I mentioned.
[/QUOTE
__________________________________________

DTS's LFE channel was/is different? they actually used/use a 5.0 system in cinema soundtracks (don't know if they still do). the LFE channel from the mixing sessions gets low passed @ 80hz and added to the satellites. at playback, the satellites are high passed @ 80hz and the remainder becomes the LFE channel. DTS's original encoder was for full range channels which would have required 20% more space on the disc (as a full range .1 channel).

Dolby's LFE channel is bandwidth limited and boosted 10 DB.

DTS CD's were originally being calibrated wrong ( or correctly, depending on how you look at it) at the studio and were playing back TOO LOUD as the Dolby spec calls for the 10 db boost to be added in the DSP for calibration reasons.

DTS and SACD have it right, both using a full bandwidth .1 channel. it's Dolby who have it wrong by bringing the bandwidth limited LFE channel with the 10 db boost to home theater (only because it's cheaper to transfer their original information directly to DVD).

it's Dolby against the world and the world has to conform to their lesser format. listen to AOTC and tell me the low freqs aren't hot-rodded, point being that how a soundtrack is mixed has less to do with whether or not the format is better.

my original point was that your entire playback system and how you choose to route the low frequencies in it are just as important to how it sounds in the end. most people lose sight of that simple fact.

soundhound's system is of extremely high quality, so his assessment of a comparison is first hand, done correctly and through very trained ears (boblinds included, of course).

soundhound also has chosen to filter the redirected bass and LFE info from his front left and right channels with sub set to 'NO', using a high quality external crossover (which is a discussion for another time). his sub system consists of no less than 4 18" drivers powered by 1,000 watts. i didn't see any mention of the DTS track containing hot rodded bass in the comparison.

in the end, DTS has to conform to Dolby's format. DTS just takes more care in the production of their product. as a result, they sound better. after 36 years in music, no one is gonna fool me into thinking exaggerated eq is the same as better production, or that a cd sounds as good as a well produced multi channel SACD. what DD music video sounds as good as 'hell freezes over'?