I wouldn't be so sure. Basic DTS is a very simple algorithm. It must have its weak points.
optional use of "joint frequency coding" (whatever that may be exactly)
Some time ago I tried a compare between DTS-CD (44.1kHz/24 bit input) and lossless (48kHz/24b), both 5.1
' date='Sep 16 2008, 19:50' post='588668']Quote from: SebastianG on 16 September, 2008, 09:35:22 AMoptional use of "joint frequency coding" (whatever that may be exactly)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stereo#...quency_encodingIn other words, MP2's intensity Stereo. Quote from: GeSomeone on 16 September, 2008, 09:58:58 AMSome time ago I tried a compare between DTS-CD (44.1kHz/24 bit input) and lossless (48kHz/24b), both 5.1Could it be that you were hearing resampling differences? (44khz vs 48khz) (on playback, that is)
But 5.1 DTS is another thing.Bitrate is nearly unlimited, consider the commercial CD-Audio , 16 bit stereo, 44,1 kHz PCM, it offers 1411 kbit/s, and 5.1 DTS can be packed into this wav container.How many of the 1411 kbit/s could be used for DTS data ?I guess at least 2/3 , 70% ?
[...]clearly worse than non-lame mp3. (something like fhg mp3 or even worse IMHO...)[...]
I tried to test DTS but it was a pain, I couldn't find any encoder doing 2.0 at equivalent bitrate to 5.1 (DTS 5.1 768Kbps /5x2= 2.0 307Kbps, DTS 5.1 1536Kbps /5x2= 2.0 614Kbps)so I tried to create an artificial 5.1 file from castanet 2.0 by splitting channels with audacity then duplicating them & then I encoded with SurCode DVDPro DTS Encoder V1.0.21the result wasn't scientific AT ALL as I compared a lossless 2.0 file against a lossy 5.1 file (with fake channels) downmixed to 2.0 ... anyway both at 768 & 1536 the result was MUCH louder (without speaking about audio artefacts).my personnal conclusion is that I cannot draw any conclusion except:DTS encoders are very unfriendly (no 2.0, no scale of bitrate, need splitted channels, change the loudness), so anyone claiming DTS superiority most likely didn't ABX it ... anything you will find is spontaneous newbie opinions like "the louder the better" or "the bigger the better".Due the loudness, it was almost impossible to ABX artefacts without applying replaygain to DTS, as my DTS file was in an MKV I couldn't replaygain it so I gave up ... I should have decoded to 5.1 wav recoded to flac then replaygain it & ABX ... but at this point I was bored & my file was a weird fake 5.1 anyway.the rumors that AC3 & DTS streams would be encoded from differents masters is IMHO most likely a myth due to this huge loudness boost ... (this may happen but you can never know as it will sound different (louder) even with the same master)
Any luck finding the studies you refer to?
http://tech.ebu.ch/webdav/site/tech/shared/tech/tech3324.pdfSee page 21 ff. if you want to skip the technicalities. Apparently, at least 448kbps are needed to code any 5.1-channel signal transparently. According to this test, DTS at 448kbps is not transparent for all items, but DTS at 1500, Dolby Digital Plus at 448, and WMA 9 at 448 are. AAC at 320 is quite close.Edit: By "transparent", I mean a score greater than 80 on the MUSHRA scale, but since that's not everyone's opionion, I should have used "excellent" I guess.
foo_abx 1.3.3 reportfoobar2000 v0.9.6.32009/03/01 02:57:07File A: C:\Documents and Settings\Sauvage\Bureau\Castanets Lossless WAV 2.0 48Khz.flacFile B: C:\Documents and Settings\Sauvage\Bureau\Castanets Lossy DTS 307Kbps 2.0 48Khz.flac02:57:07 : Test started.02:57:48 : 01/01 50.0%02:58:31 : 02/02 25.0%02:59:08 : 03/03 12.5%03:01:43 : 04/04 6.3%03:02:41 : 05/05 3.1%03:04:01 : 06/06 1.6%03:05:18 : 07/07 0.8%03:07:32 : 08/08 0.4%03:07:39 : Test finished. ---------- Total: 8/8 (0.4%)
foo_abx 1.3.3 reportfoobar2000 v0.9.6.32009/03/01 03:46:27File A: C:\Documents and Settings\Sauvage\Bureau\Castanets Lossless WAV 2.0 48Khz.flacFile B: C:\Documents and Settings\Sauvage\Bureau\Castanets Lossy AC3 (Soft Encode V1.0 Build 19) 256Kbps 2.0 48Khz.flac03:46:27 : Test started.03:47:37 : 01/01 50.0%03:48:26 : 02/02 25.0%03:49:32 : 03/03 12.5%03:51:31 : 04/04 6.3%03:52:34 : 05/05 3.1%03:53:51 : 06/06 1.6%03:54:58 : 07/07 0.8%03:56:16 : 08/08 0.4%03:56:21 : Test finished. ---------- Total: 8/8 (0.4%)