Yes. That is what I meant. Great minds think alike. That is just what I set mine to also.

As gonk noted, the "bit budget" for DTS is higher than for DD, to my understanding because it uses a "lossless" compression algorithm, while DD's is lossy, so to that point I suppose that there is a quality difference. I think that audiophiles in general see DTS as superior, and I personally notice that DD is a bit harsher in the higher frequencies. Sounds like your ears are noticing something similar.

No difference in quality has ever been demonstrated by any of the magazines, movie studios or music labels that have done careful tests between DD and DTS. Probably is. Louder, especially if it's a small difference in volume, is almost always heard as an improvement in sound quality. It's an old salesman trick. Both use lossy compression that discards data; the DTS codec is ineffecient compared to DD, which is why it requires so much more bandwidth.

Actually, both are lossy, but DTS claims a less lossy compression algorithm. Lossless compression (such as DVD-Audio's MLP) takes a lot of disc space.

My take after comparing a few films with both is that the difference is minimal. DTS is louder and perhaps a tad smoother. But that could be my imagination running away with me. It will take a lot more flicks to see which I prefer.

Yup, but Soundhound and I did a test one afternoon quite a while ago in his personal studio, calibrated for professional application. (He mixed commercial films there.)

We both could clearly hear a difference, even with careful level matching. The Dolby compression was audibly more lossy than the DTS, less smooth, with less clarity of detail (manifest primarily in a loss of acoustical ambiance in the music tracks.)

And do I have the temerity to place our informal testing over the testing of the magazines, movie studios and music labels?

Damn right, I do. :p

In the last analysis, it's nothing to lose sleep over. But a difference is there and it sounds related directly to the compression algorithms.

The difference that you SHOULD lose sleep over is the difference between the original audio stems of the soundtrack and the chewed-up, compressed versions of BOTH DD and DTS. The amount of sound that those compression schemes throw away is heart-breaking.

Speaking of, Soundhound has been MIA since the great balanced/unbalanced debate. That was like a month and a half ago. I hope all is well.

I can't really speak for Da Hound, but he is OK. Just very busy these days.

Thanks for the update Bob. Good to hear he has a lot on his table and its not something else. By the way, I agree with your assesment of DD vs DTS.

Right, and people routinely hear differences in cables, power cords, etc. Doesn't mean those differences actually exist.

Controlled tests between the codecs done by 5.1 Entertainment, Warner Home Video, Home Theater Mag, What Hi-Fi magazine, Home Cinema Choice magazine, etc., were all unable to reliably pick DD apart from DTS (let alone demonstrate a consistent listener preference).

Had somebody (anybody) been able to establish DTS's superiority over DD, it would not only have been news but been flaunted by DTS in all their marketing material. But in the decade that DTS has been out, they have never ever been able to point to a single controlled listening test that supports what you're claiming. That's a fact.

You can place your "informal testing" over the testing of the magazines, movie studios and music labels, but that doesn't establish a difference that formal testing has never been able to demonstrate.