whatever happened to PCM

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

I'm sure this has been talked about many times here. I have a pretty good sound system and I swear I can always hear the difference between Dolby True HD and DTS HDMA. I personally prefere DTS HDMA by a long shot. The impact and dynamics of sound through all speakers and subwoofer is always clearly apparent to me compared to DD True HD. I think I have only one disk with PCM.

Is that you marcus? holy shit you just made my ****ing day! how the hell?

[Marcusarilius]

Actually I'm Blu beard come back as Davie Jones's Biatch boy Marcusarilius.

[saprano]

LOL! I LOVE YOU! oh the memories * wipes tears form his eyes*

[JJ]

I heard some sort of re-animation process was used on Marcus, some sort of unholy necromancy that allowed him to pull a phoenix and be reborn from the ashes.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

I heard some sort of re-animation process was used on Marcus, some sort of unholy necromancy that allowed him to pull a phoenix and be reborn from the ashes.

Correct. It was from the Necro-marcus book of the dead. Speaking of the dead... How does everyone else view PCM? Is it a preference? Any difference?

[saprano]

I almost wanted to take his place with the blue words just to keep him here in spirit( i know im sad oh well) but it just didn't work for me.

Please please try not to get summond by the gods again

On topic....

As for me i think DTS and PCM are way better than DTHD, yea i know there all the same but that doesn't stop me from hearing a difference.

Tell them to stop using dialnorm and turning 24bit tracks 16 bits. ( well some studios)
DTHD just doesn't sound as live as DTS IMO.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by saprano

LOL! I LOVE YOU! oh the memories * wipes tears form his eyes*

whoa!!!!get a room

back to the topic at hand, spider 3 has truehd and pcm so does 300....

Top gun and close encounter have truehd and dtshd.....

i know of no movies the have dtshd and pcm though..

[Cadrian]

I was raised on DTS is better then Dolby ... I am sticking to it no matter if they are the same now.

I do agree PCM is better, I prefer it. Its pure. Kinda wish Movies were Just video and sound only.... Add the special features to another disc.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Cadrian

I was raised on DTS is better then Dolby ... I am sticking to it no matter if they are the same now.

During the days of DVD, DTS is better than Dolby. But this is due to different mixing processes, for example, in the LOTR: EE vs the regular LOTR. The mixing was re-done, and it is clearly evident in some scenes, for example, the Moria scene when the arrows are flying through your channels.

Not to mention DTS is also encoded at a higher bitrate on DVDs, 750 kbps as compared to the 448 on DD.

But again, the major difference is due to the mix.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

Question: When DTS first hit theaters, (Jurrasic Park) did anyone notice the difference from the standard uncompressed DD? I sure did and chose the theaters that were playing movie X in DTS as to the theaters playing same movie X with DD.

Unless you lived in Europe there was no Jurassic Park in DD (and DTS theatrical is COMPLETELY different from DTS home)

Preferring DTS-HD MA is purely in the mind and depends on the mix.

Listen to RoboCop and then Iron Man. I suppose you prefer RoboCop because it was DTS?

Listen to The Fly then Cloverfield. DTS wins, right?

Listen to Thunderball then the Casino Royale SE. Thunderball wins due to solely being in DTS?

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous it sounds?

Matter of fact the lossy DD tracks of the TrueHD films I listed beat the pants off those lossless DTS-HD MA tracks!

[saprano]

You can even hear a BIG difference between the lossy DD and DTS with the jarassic park3 dvd, dolby digital sounds good, but when i switch to DTS ( and get that sweet little intro) its so much better.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by shadblz

I kinda wanted to have PCM with the Dark Knight. it would have been better. wouldn't it.

Short answer: no.

Matter of fact the video may have looked slightly worse.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Short answer: no.

Matter of fact the video may have looked slightly worse.

Huh? the pirates series says ahoy

or did you mean because of WB?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

Not to mention DTS is also encoded at a higher bitrate on DVDs, 750 kbps as compared to the 448 on DD.

Bitrate has little to do with it.

DD is much more efficient, same way MPEG4 or VC-1 can do more with less bitrate than MPEG2 in the video world.

Did you know DTS @768kbps starts losing the high freqencies above 15kHz and DD @448 doesn't? DD doesn't start to lose them until it gets below 384kbps.

But pump up the volume and suddenly people perceive DTS "better", same way people point to the overly bright, overly colorful TV in a store as "better" than the rest.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Short answer: no.

Matter of fact the video may have looked slightly worse.

I'm gonna be honest, the IMAX scenes are basically perfect in Dark Knight...

But the black bar scenes that are the bulk of the movie would barely get a 4
IMO....Maybe I'm just pissed at Warner....But it definately wasn't as clean
as say Ironman or Incredible Hulk, except for the IMAX...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

Huh? the pirates series says ahoy

or did you mean because of WB?

Less video bandwidth.

Plus the Pirates films were a direct digital transfer off a graded digital intermediate. Much easier to compress than TDK.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Bitrate has little to do with it.

DD is much more efficient, same way MPEG4 or VC-1 can do more with less bitrate than MPEG2 in the video world.

Did you know DTS @768kbps starts losing the high freqencies above 15kHz and DD @448 doesn't? DD doesn't start to lose them until it gets below 384kbps.

But pump up the volume and suddenly people perceive it "better", same way people point to the overly bright, overly colorful TV in a store as "better" than the rest.

I knew the first part. I said, on that same post "the main difference is due to...so and so."

But as for the second part, that is interesting knowledge! Where did you get that information from?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

But as for the second part, that is interesting knowledge! Where did you get that information from?

VERY old product articles comparing the codecs, circa 2000.

You can probably find it with internet news searches, DTS isn't exactly proud of that little detail, but getting down to lower bitrates was the only way to get them on mainstream DVDs, rather than the dual-releases Universal had been doing in the beginning.

[Sith]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

VERY old product articles comparing the codecs, circa 2000.

You can probably find it with internet news searches, DTS isn't exactly proud of that little detail, but getting down to lower bitrates was the only way to get them on mainstream DVDs, rather than the dual-releases Universal had been doing in the beginning.

Peter let me ask you this if you've seen it....I have dumb and dumber coming
from amazon, is it so bad that i should just keep my dvd and return it for
something else? Your opinion would be greatly appreciated....

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Sith

Peter let me ask you this if you've seen it....I have dumb and dumber coming
from amazon, is it so bad that i should just keep my dvd and return it for
something else? Your opinion would be greatly appreciated....

You should be fine.

If you're a fan of the film then the upgrade is worth it.