|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

The SR emualtion is not as good as Dolby, but yu'd be running in DTS most of the time anyway, right?

Wrong, here you can't get DTS discs for love, money or both. Hence it looks like those 4 units will be removed in favour of CP650's farily soon.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I've gotten a good look at a couple DTS-6ADs. Their digital sound playback is just fine. Sure, the SR and A-type analog playback is not as good as what you would have in a Dolby CP-65. But the same can be said against the digital-emulated playback of SR and A type in a new Dolby CP-650. If SR and A-type reproduction is that important, I would try real hard to find a good CP-65 or CP-500 to purchase.

1. WHO you are. The larger circuit cinemas seem to get discs as a matter of course. The smaller circuits and independants might as well not bother trying. If you are not a first run house then you've absolutely no chance.

2. WHERE you are. Here in Scotland it's really difficult to get discs, unless you're one of the big boys. From what I hear from my colleagues, it's somewhat easier the closer you are to London.

How have you done your comparisons? And please don't us that compression or bit rate crap....I mean how have you heard the two side by side to determine which sounds "better".

I have done the comparision for others where they didn't know which format was playing (SDDS, DD or DTS)...this is on systems where the same print was running the same theatre using the same EQ (in the case of DD and DTS) and EQed at the same time for all three systems such that all were identical on an R2.

When blind testing has been done this way (the listener doesn't know what is playing)...never has one system always prevailed, except ...though when I did the listen test with Episode 1 SDDS was voted the best by ALL listeners (normally there will not be a preference one way or the other when a group listens). I did find it funny once when a customer came into the booth and inquired which digital system we used...I told him we had access to DTS and DD...he made the usual BS remarks about DD and compression artifacts and I gave him the challenge...I would switch during the performace between the two systems and he was to tell me afterwards which segments sounded best (I actually only switched on reel changes)...after the show he came back to the booth with a grin figuring he knew....based on this person Dolby Digital was the best on all segments! He claimed that most the time it was hard to tell there was a different system playing but when he could tell...the Dolby digital segments were better! Now this is the same film on the same sound system, same EQ...

What can be drawn from all this? Not a damn thing at this point...if I had played the segments the other way would DTS have won because this listener liked those segments more? Possibly. If I had given him the challange on another title would the test have come out differently? Also very possible.

My point is, to dismiss Dolby Digital due to their ability to use lossy compression and low bit-rate without an even comparision is just plain wrong. It is only nature to wish for lossless 0 compression signal if available...but when it comes to sound...all the numbers don't mean anything if something sounds a certain way to some people. The lossy compression isn't as cut and dried as something like noise...most people can hear his or crackels...compression schemes for audio are designed to take away what we theoretically can't hear in the first place.

Steve

On comparisons where the SDDS internal EQ was used, it was always a unanimous "that one definitely sounds worse". My results there coupled with your results of the external EQ sounding better further prove that sort of test is flawed, for it is not the same EQ regardless of what an R2 or any other form of calibration says.

As for comparing Dolby Digital theatrical to Dolby Digital on DVD, there really is not much of a way to do that. But I can recall just how bad or mediocre a DD theatrical show might have been in relation to how different the DVD sounds.

"Kiss the Girls" is one of the most glaringly bad examples. I watched this one at Wichita Falls' Carmike Sikes 10 theater when that theater had just opened. The two THX screens were brand new and perfectly set up, and featured top quality amps, Dolby CP-500s and lots of other nice stuff. There's no reason for the movie not to sound good in this theater, but it really didn't. The dynamic range and split surround activity was there, but the audio quality was just about as harsh as a badly done A-type recording. I watched it again up here in Lawton in THX-DTS. Night and day differece. The sound quality was smoother. Same for the DD 5.1 448kb/s DVD.

One thing most people haven't noticed is that SDDS' Pink noise and Compeonent Engineering's pink noise are NOT identtical...SDDS' is more HF deficient and will cause the technican to boost the highs on SDDS more than the other formats! Does this affect the overall sound? You bet it does! In my particular SDDS, DD, and DTS shoot off, the surround did use the same (outboard) eq (RANE ME-60) for the four surround channels (EX).

Bobby:

I would strongly disagree with your assertation DTS has a more mag sound than Dolby Digital....In fact, of the three digital systems, DTS is the one that I can normally tell, myself, within a few seconds of hearing a film and I wouldn't call it mag sounding....I don't find the three systems to sound alike myself but with several tests with many people not knowing what was playing at any given time....the stats I have been able to come up with is that Neither DTS nor Dolby Digital come out on top or bottom (I haven't done many SDDS tests...too few theatres).

As to bit rate and compression...I never said that it has NO effect just that compression and bit rate alone can not be used to dismiss a process out of hand. I know a couple of IMAX types that think DTS sound just fine (with compression) as compared to the IMAX uncompressed PCM tracks...one would think that the IMAX uncompressed tracks should always come out on top.

It would appear that Brad and I have conducted similar tests (blind A/B or A/B/C test) and with nearly identical results...people in the theatre can't tell which system is playing or which is better.

Steve

Sure it can be said that defeating the internal EQing of an SDDS unit "hampers" the sound output, but it can also be said that using the internal EQing of an SDDS unit is not reproducing the sound accurately either. (If you want to get super picky over it, which you frequently do.)

I'm sure I am not the only person who feels that SDDS sounds "metallic and harsh" in general. In fact I KNOW I am not. SDDS is unmistakable in a quality installation that uses the SDDS EQ circuitry...but not in a good manner. When it's EQ controls are left flat and the equalization is performed inside a Dolby processor, the end result quality is fantastic, and yes no one seems to be able to tell the difference at that point.

I made a DD/DTS comparison in a THX theater with Godzilla few time ago. At that time I wasn't a projectionist and I didn't found any differences between DD and DTS. NOW, after three year of cinema, I simply recongnize when a DTS encoded movie is shown in my theater (not THX).
I was projecting "Pearl Harbor" in a THX theater 1 month ago. The movie, Buena Vista, had only DD and SDDS available. Once, I was walking under the screen at credits. There was an opera song. Dolby compression was very noticeable!!! Was like an MP3 compressed at 128kbps. Strings were terrible.
I'm convinced that DTS sounds better, however I understand why european owners are installing Dolby in all theaters and DTS just in bigger houses.