 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Never Trust Widescreen Review posted by NotMe on January 27, 2003 at 12:17:55:
1) I do not consider DTS to be a HI-REZ format. Any material where the music information has been compromised -- poisoned with watermarking such as Verance or by throwing away bits -- cannot be considered HI-REZ.2) The quote was in WR, but WR (Editor Gary Reber) wasn't quoted -- Kirchner from DTS was. Are you saying that DTS doesn't know the limits of its own codec?
3) Most of what WR "promotes" for DTS is for the DVD-V format -- not the DVD-A format. WidescreenReview, in their opinion and mine, supports the best codec currently available for that format -- DTS. The only other alternative lossy codec (remember, DVD-V is a video format first -- not audio) is Dolby Digital. Is "that" your choice regarding the two options? By the way, if you promote DVD-A over SACD, does that make you a "shill" for DVD-A?
4) I stated that DTS has 24/192 capability because Michi -- who, in my opinion, usually adds valuable discussion and thought provoking comments anytime she posts -- posted that it wasn't available. Well, it is available. Whether or not it will work with the decoder in everyone's processor/receiver may or may not be possible. However, keep in mind that DTS-ES is backwards compatible and DTS 24/96 is also backwards compatible. While neither will allow you to take advantage of its features unless you have a DTS-ES or DTS 24/96 capable chip, the new format can still be used with your current decoder. When, or if, you upgrade later on, you will be able to take advantage of what these new formats offer. Sounds like the similar benefit that DD/DTS/MLP DVD-As and hybrid SACDs have to me. Is that such a bad thing?
5) DTS can have a bit rate over 6 Mbs. As a lossy compression codec, I think that's a good deal of information and far more than what's used now (for lossy codecs). Will we ever go to 10.2 channels like TH the ex-THX guru wants? I can't answer that. They can't answer that. Neither can you. The fact is, they have this capability.
6) The sound quality is subjective. There are some people that think DVD-As and SACDs sound no better than CDs and those CDs can be matched by "CD-quality" MP3s! There are even people that think their format of choice, with its added sounds of Rice Krispys, is better than the master tape that it was produced from! Are you going to tell any of them that their "subjective" opinion is wrong?
7) All I know is that DTS makes a lot more people happy than you do by pissing with your pants still on. I see what they are doing to further people's enjoyment of DVD-As and DVD-Vs. Just what are you doing?
Follow Ups:
that it wasn't available to the consumer... Which it isn't. (24/192 no, 24/96 yes.)The lossless version is also not available for HT or to consumers.
(The information I get comes from whitepapers delivered by DTS when I was doing encoding professionally.)
I see people asking if 24/192 DTS is available, and then answering "Yes, 24/96 DTS is available."
//""It covers sampling rates up to 192kHz and has a lossless mode as well." -- John Kirchner of DTS on the codec's capabilities. "//
Yes, the CODEC ITSELF does. But *no* current consumer implementations can understand it.
"DTS" isn't really a single codec, more like a suite of algorithms, as most lossy codecs are. (AAC for example: AAC Main, LC, and SSR.)
However a good portion of these algorithms are not implemented _at all_ in consumer products.
What Kirchner probably meant was that in house, yes, they can make their (DTS's algorithms) do lossless 192. It was probably developed for the DVD-A forum.
DTS's current "bitrate ceiling" is determined by the DVD-V spec's bitrate limit. (~6mbps for DVD-V, ~9mbps for DVD-A.)
I just think people are getting confused as to what 'DTS' means. Their 'codec' can be used to refer to all of their algorithms in one package.
But I challenge anyone to find a single piece of consumer gear that can do lossless DTS at 192khz.
Sorry, couldn't resist. It sucks, Nonesuch is owned by Warner... so I've got a choice of1) New CD releases
2) Lossy Watermarked DVD-A if it even gets a DVD-A release
3) Original Vinyl pressings...Guess which I'll be taking, 1 or 3....
I'm debating the fact that WSR always promotes DTS and gives them an open forum to wax lyrical about their latest and greatest format without ever being taken to task. DTS engineers know the limits of their formats, but I'm not so sure about their marketing people or Widescreen Review. And if you think Reber wasn't involved, wake up, he's the editor/owner/publisher.I'm not sure who the remainder of your ramble is aimed at, there was no mention of anything other than the dubious merits of DTS 96/24 in my post, so I can only assume you're addressing someone else with the remainder.
And as for point seven, resorting to the schoolyard name-calling only serves to devalue anything sensible you may have had to say.
Your post came off, to me at least, that DTS is just a marketing game and holds no value in audio/video. That's what I was addressing with the reply. "Pissing with your pants up" is an expression -- not name-calling. I believe it does apply in regards to "my" impression of your post. Perhaps this was not your post's intent, but that's how I took it. As to the name-calling and having ones contribution "devalued", I don't believe I've met anyone whose given name was "shill" -- have you? WR is not perfect and I never said that they were. But if you think that these guys are bad, just wait until you read the "high end" mags...
By a substantial margin ? I guess using a mega DTS stream will give better performance to more people and leave more room for Video clips.Daniel.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
