|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby vs DTS....Some food for thought......
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/72d.jpg)
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-20-2001 05:03 PM
I found this note on the Association Of Moving Image Archivists noteboard and thought it was quite interesting so I decided to post it here. Its interesting that they didn't even consider SDDS at all in this comparison. Mark @ GTSGreetings, As we increasingly encounter digital sound records for motion pictures, the academic question as to which of the two fares better when compared by an audience when two paired sound samples are played back in succession, with each half of the pair recorded by identical or different systems. This question is answered in a report from Guy Walker BSc and Shui-I-Shih PhD, in a paper entitled: "Dolby v DTS-The academic viewpoint", pp. 35-30, in Cinema Technology (ISSN 0995-2251), published by the British Kinematograph Sound and Television Society (BKSTS) . Their website is: www.bksts.com. What is significant about the results is that although the differences were almost imperceptible, the listeners indicated that Dolby Digital data-reduced audio sounded better than data-lossless DTS! Yet the amount of the originally recorded sound data of Dolby Digital that is used, only amounts to 20%, meaning a compression ratio of 5:1, yet it sounded better than uncompressed DTS. This is also the subject of discussion in the video community where presentation quality is optimized for an optimum viewing quality that may be surprisingly good for compressed images, such as when comparing 35mm cinema projection using film vs digital cinema projected from data reduced DVD media. PS. The corresponding author's contact details are: guy.walker@brunel.ac.uk or Tel: +44 (0)1784 431341, Ext. 244.
|
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/381.jpg)
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 02-20-2001 05:49 PM
I agree, Scott. If digital audio is used for archival, I think plain old simple uncompressed samples are the best way to go. All you have to do to read them is read them in succession, knowing the sample size, number of channels, and sample rate.Think about archival this way: Suppose an archaeologist from the future found some of our sound or picture recordings and had no idea how our technology worked, the pure analog forms, such as vinyl records and film prints would be the easiest to read and figure out, obviously. Anything in digital form would need to be as simple and straightforward as possible to decode to have any hope of recovering it without any algorithm documentation. Evans A Criswell
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Eickhof
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/323.jpg)
Posts: 588
From: Wendell, ID USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-20-2001 10:22 PM
It's interesting! Mark, About three years ago,I did several side by side tests with both blind audiences and SMPTE Sacramento chapter members w/ families at the Colfax Theatre in Colfax, Cal. We demo'ed all three digital formats (permanently installed) through the same B chain, with the following results every time: The audience chose DTS as the most dynamic and clear sounding, Dolby was next, with the plain USL analog third and SDDS 8 channel FOURTH!!! (Lonnie Jennings of Dolby was there and did his own B chain adjustments, as I was also and the audience was subjected to the same reel of film four times without knowing the sound format! Basically the audience liked the DTS first! Only once out of three of these sessions did SDDS beat out the Analog USL! Verrrrrry interrrresting!!!------------------ John Eickhof President, Chief Slave Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc. P.O.Box 258 Wendell, ID. 83355-0258 208-536-5489 email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/529b.jpg)
Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-21-2001 04:50 PM
I would always claim DTS being more dynamic than SRD... Mark says> SRD more reliable< Doesn't that very much depend on how far down the distribution alley You are..? To many drop-outs on SRD, when You're not on first-run, but become 2-3 months old prints as 4th or 5th theatre, i think. Normally no such problems on DTS. --That is: Right now Cast Away is making my hair grey: First 3 days in screen #1 DTS ok. On 4th day all blinking - system never on. On 5th day print moved to Screen #2, running perfect, and two even older prints (Chicken and Parents) coming to screen #1 ok too.... Ready to panic !BTW: May i hear from Your experience, please: Some of You guys have been discussing SRD penthouse versus basement readers, and i think the vote majoriry goes for basement readers being less good. -Does that go for all makes ? My screen 1 is two Norelco (DP70)s with DTS and cat 700 / 701. Screen 2 is Vicoria 9 with DTS, and i'm now considering SRD for this one also. What would You say about the Cinemec basement reader - Should i wait for that nice day, when boxoffice allows Miss Victoria to be replaced with an FP30 from Kinoton or what..? Per
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|