Dolby @640kbps vs DTS @1.5mbit

[Henners]

Hey guys,

As above

What would you say/experience which one has sounded better from the core tracks of the hd audio's?

I've been reading on some wiki & dolby/dts sites.. they both seem to claim they can achieve almost like transparent sound at these bitrates..

I think I can hear a better sound from the DTS side.. even though I know that it is made at like 4db louder.. but it just seems much better clarity

Thanks

~Hen

[mugupo]

Originally Posted by Henners

Hey guys,

As above

What would you say/experience which one has sounded better from the core tracks of the hd audio's?

I've been reading on some wiki & dolby/dts sites.. they both seem to claim they can achieve almost like transparent sound at these bitrates..

I think I can hear a better sound from the DTS side.. even though I know that it is made at like 4db louder.. but it just seems much better clarity

Thanks

~Hen

Dolby 640k and DTS 1.5mb is not hd sound, DTS sound better than dolby cause it has higher DB and more dymatics. But in HD sound, is hard to see the different unless it has 7.1 sound.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by mugupo

Dolby 640k and DTS 1.5mb is not hd sound, DTS sound better than dolby cause it has higher DB and more dymatics. But in HD sound, is hard to see the different unless it has 7.1 sound.

Ok, Thanks

But I never said that I was talk about HD sound..

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by Henners

Ok, Thanks

But I never said that I was talk about HD sound..

"What would you say/experience which one has sounded better from the core tracks of the hd audio's?"

You sure did.

Those are both Lossy tracks. DD+ is better than DD due to the increased channels and the increased bitrate. A better question would be to compare DTS and DD+.

[hardcorefrokid]

I say DTS sounds better.

Originally Posted by FendersRule

"What would you say/experience which one has sounded better from the core tracks of the hd audio's?"

You sure did.

Those are both Lossy tracks. DD+ is better than DD due to the increased channels and the increased bitrate. A better question would be to compare DTS and DD+.

He didn't. Core tracks, the 1.5mbit DTS inside the DTS-HD MA track or a 640kbps Dolby Digital track inside the TrueHD track. When your player doesn't decode DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD it plays a core lossy track.

[SlmShdy1]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Those are both Lossy tracks. DD+ is better than DD due to the increased channels and the increased bitrate. A better question would be to compare DTS and DD+.

Exactly. Dolby Digital isn't good enough on its own to compete with DTS. I believe you just answered the question.

[hardcorefrokid]

Originally Posted by SlmShdy1

Exactly. Dolby Digital isn't good enough on its own to compete with DTS. I believe you just answered the question.

Agreed. But, at least in my experience, most core Dolby core tracks are Dolby Digital.

[Kryptonic]

DTS will sound better undoubtedly. Less compression and more dynamics. Honestly, unless you have an ungodly sound system, a 1.5 mbps DTS track is more than sufficient.

[BIslander]

This is the latest incarnation of the same thread that's been started dozens and dozens of times in this and other forums. Bitrates alone should not be used for the comparison. Dolby and DTS use different techniques for lossy compression and Dolby varies bitrate allocations among the channels based on content while DTS does not.

If you read through these many, many threads, I think you will find that DTS at 1509 and DD at 640 are pretty much the same with, perhaps, a slight edge to DTS. Both are considerably better than the lower bitrate versions on DVD and both rival their new lossless cousins on Blu-ray.

[solarrdadd]

DTS!