#DVD Channel News
EST. SEPTEMBER 8th, 1997
Jump to         
Find       in      

DVD Video Section
Release Rollout
   Announcements
   New Releases
   Cover Art
Instant Insight
   Rumors
   Reviews
   Forums
   Staff Picks
   Interviews
   Editorials
Virtual Features
   Mailbox Media
   Broken Disc
   Easter Eggstra
   DVD Wish List
   AFI Top 100
   Contest Center
Info Sector
   Sales Statistics
   Section Links
   Studio Contacts

Navigation
Section Selection
   Front Desk
   Hollywood Spotlight
Site Orientation
   Site Info
   Contact Us
   Interactivities
   Refer a Friend
   Site Walkthrough
Other Links
  • DVD Video Archive

  • Voting Booth

    Random Poll: Just how big is big momma?


    a) Big momma is so big, she can get group insurance rates.
    b) Big momma is so big, she gets clothes in three sizes: extra large, jumbo and oh-my-god-it's-coming-towards-us!
    c) Big momma is so big, when she gets on the scale it says 'to be continued.'
    d) Actually, big momma is so big, when she gets on the scale it says 'One at a time, please!'
    e) Hey... uh - the movie is about 'Big Momma' not 'Yo Mama'. Get your head out of the toilet.

    Submit A Poll Question

    Quick Comment
    Send us your comments!
    See our responses!

      DCN DVD VIDEO FORUM
      General Mumbo Jumbo
      Which do you prefer? DTS audio track, or extra supplements?

    Post New Topic  Post A Reply
    profile | register | preferences | faq | search

    UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
    Author Topic:   Which do you prefer? DTS audio track, or extra supplements?
    anyo
    Lackey

    Posts: 12
    From:
    Registered: Apr 2000

    posted 05-11-2000 01:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for anyo   Click Here to Email anyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    This is getting to be a question that pops up a lot now, especially when newer titles have both DTS 5.1 and DD 5.1 on the same disc (eg. Man On The Moon, Bowfinger).

    So the question is, would you rather have the better quality audio from DTS, or more supplements / bonus material? Of course your opinion would vary from title to title, but overall, what is your opinion? And what are some DD/DTS titles that you wish were done differently?

    codestah
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 121
    From:San Jose, California USA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-11-2000 02:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for codestah   Click Here to Email codestah     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    uhhh... SUPPLEMENTS, Please. I can only be immersed so far into surround sound. DD5.1 is just dandy by me, I'd appreciate supplements much more.

    Edge
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 155
    From:Sunnyvale, CA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-12-2000 02:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Edge   Click Here to Email Edge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Though --

    I believe actually that some of the upcoming DTS discs I've typed the specs up on indicate that they contain the very same supplements as their Dolby Digital counterpart.

    The upcoming Jaws: Special Edition DD and DTS discs are one such example.

    However, in the past - with titles like Saving Private Ryan, etc. where a choice must be made to go with "superior" sound or supplements (short of buying them both) ... I've opted for supplements as that sort of background information is more appealing to me for personal reasons (film major).

    - mf

    Edge
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 155
    From:Sunnyvale, CA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-12-2000 02:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Edge   Click Here to Email Edge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Oh.. and Sean...

    You'll like DD 5.1 even better when you upgrade your Dolby Pro-Logic receiver.

    - mf

    codestah
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 121
    From:San Jose, California USA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-12-2000 02:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for codestah   Click Here to Email codestah     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quiet, you. no 5.1 until I move. ;-)

    J Higgins
    Lackey

    Posts: 6
    From:
    Registered: May 2000

    posted 05-13-2000 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for J Higgins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Supplements, hands down! They are not always interesting or worthwhile, but when they are...Wow, you're glad to have them.

    Call me a heathen, but the audio is among my LOWEST of concerns when watching DVD. I usually *gasp!* just listen in straight stereo. I have 5.1 machines, but I choose not to use their capability: I just don't like surround. (In fairness, maybe I don't tend to watch the kind of films that show off high-end audio.) I have DVD for the razor-sharp video and the supplements you can't get on tape. As for DTS, fuhgeddaboudit.

    anyo
    Lackey

    Posts: 12
    From:
    Registered: Apr 2000

    posted 05-15-2000 11:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for anyo   Click Here to Email anyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    I agree that supplements are much more valuable, but in the case of discs like Jaws where the supplements are the same on both the DD and DTS versions, I am obviously going to get the DTS version. But I am happy with those disc's that have both DD and DTS on them _only_ when they aren't going to put any extras on them anyways.

    In other words, if they aren't going to have extras anyways, I'm glad when they do use the extra space for a DTS track.

    codestah
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 121
    From:San Jose, California USA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-16-2000 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for codestah   Click Here to Email codestah     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by anyo:
    In other words, if they aren't going to have extras anyways, I'm glad when they do use the extra space for a DTS track.

    Yes, but why do you suppose it is that they were not going to "have extras anyways"? Because they'er too bloody caught up investing their production $$'s in DTS audio transfers that's why. You think that stuff comes free? Just a "quickie" conversion and you get a lovely DTS track? Nope. You sacrifice time and money to produce a brand new DTS audio track for a disc - time and money which on a limited production schedule, COULD have been focused on providing supplements.

    Edge
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 155
    From:Sunnyvale, CA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-16-2000 05:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Edge   Click Here to Email Edge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    quote:
    Originally posted by codestah:
    Yes, but why do you suppose it is that they were not going to "have extras anyways"? Because they'er too bloody caught up investing their production $$'s in DTS audio transfers that's why.

    That's true.. however, the once-popular reason why DTS discs didn't have supplements was because of the greater amount of storage DTS required due to its low compression.

    Jaws seemingly proves this scapegoat reasoning wrong.

    - mf

    Ruined
    Lackey

    Posts: 1
    From:
    Registered: May 2000

    posted 05-27-2000 04:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ruined   Click Here to Email Ruined     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    My stance on this is that although supplements are great, I would rather have superior audio and/or video any day. Most only watch the supplements once (if at all), but watch the movie multiple times. Therefore, I would opt for the best presentation of the actual movie. In other words, I'd rather have the DTS soundtrack. If I really wanted to see the supplements and the DTS version was lacking them, I could rent the DD version, watch them, and own the DTS/superior presentation of the movie.

    On another note, codestah, "producing" DTS tracks is not nearly as difficult or expensive as you describe. If it was, small companies like DVD International, Unapix, and NuTech would not be able to afford including them on their DVDs. Encoding the DTS soundtrack basically involves picking what type of soundtrack you are encoding (i.e. Movie or Music), and hitting the encode button. This simplicity is illustrated by DTS software encoders such as Minnetonka Audio's SurCode. DD and DTS soundtracks are not variable bitrate like MPEG2 video so they are far easier and much less time consuming to encode. The primary reason many studios do not offer DTS soundtracks is likely because the authoring facility that gives them the lowest bid on a project and/or the one they usually use for projects is not equipped to encode DTS, or charge an extra price for including it the studio is not willing to pay. Attempting to use the argument that adding DTS soundtracks will eliminate the time necessary to add supplements is not a very well thought out argument anyway. Should we settle for inferior video quality as well so that there is more time to include supplements? Perhaps you are only thinking in this fashion because you cannot benefit from the advantages DTS soundtracks offer some; but I believe thinking in this way is short-sighted. For example, I currently don't have a 16:9 TV, but I support 16:9 because in the future when I do have 16:9 I want the extra resolution it can offer me. The same can be applied to DTS -- even if you don't have it, or your current system is too poor to expose the benefits of it, you should support it because in the future you too may have a system that benefits from it.

    DaEdge was right concerning the initial bare bones DTS discs -- although now it has been proven with real-life discs, it was obvious to me previously that supplements could have been fit on the bare bones discs if the studios chose to include them. Antz DTS and Liar Liar DTS were bare bones and single layer discs; going dual-layer would have made room for supplements. The DTS soundtrack on Apollo 13 took up about as much space as the multiple DD5.1 soundtracks and isolated score on the DD version, and the DD version was packed with supplements. So why not include them? Again, authoring a complex DVD with loads of extra materials is more expensive than authoring a simple DVD with no extra material.

    anyo
    Lackey

    Posts: 12
    From:
    Registered: Apr 2000

    posted 05-29-2000 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for anyo   Click Here to Email anyo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Thanks ruined! that's exactly what I was getting at ;-)

    codestah
    Big Cheese

    Posts: 121
    From:San Jose, California USA
    Registered: Dec 99

    posted 05-30-2000 10:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for codestah   Click Here to Email codestah     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
    Okay, the following rebuttle is just sheer lameness. Another victim who has failed to grasp the context of the original statement. As simply as I can imagine, the statement is this:

    The "STANDARD" for audio is Dolby Digital. Film studios LIKE standards. Clearly Dolby Digital is favored. DTS is therefore an optional interest. Optional interests, TO ME, are additions, not substitutions. Additions cost money and take time (and time is money). I don't care if it's 30 minutes or 30 hours.

    You said it yourself that a production house may, "charge an extra price for including it the studio is not willing to pay". Sounds like $$'s ringing in my ears TO ME. Or am I only thinking this way because I "cannot benefit from the advantages DTS soundtracks offer"? What nonsense. First of all, I am in favor of NORMS and STANDARDS and would prefer that DD5.1 be the standard for digital audio. It is small, concise, and good enough for vast #'s of technophiles. It is my OPINION that DTS offers NOTHING SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER than DD5.1. As far as I'm concerned, DTS and it's variants can all take a flying leap into a bottomless pit before more channels start showing up to spend hard earned $ on. But MY OPINION of the DTS format itself isn't even on topic, is it?

    "not a very well thought out argument"?
    Who said anything about being "difficult"?

    How about: not a very well thought out attempt to rant and rave against an apathetic target?

    Shame on you for such careless blundering in your slanderous response.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Ruined:
    On another note, codestah, "producing" DTS tracks is not nearly as difficult or expensive as you describe.... The primary reason many studios do not offer DTS soundtracks is likely because the authoring facility that gives them the lowest bid on a project and/or the one they usually use for projects is not equipped to encode DTS, or charge an extra price for including it the studio is not willing to pay. Attempting to use the argument that adding DTS soundtracks will eliminate the time necessary to add supplements is not a very well thought out argument anyway. Should we settle for inferior video quality as well so that there is more time to include supplements? Perhaps you are only thinking in this fashion because you cannot benefit from the advantages DTS soundtracks offer some; but I believe thinking in this way is short-sighted. For example, I currently don't have a 16:9 TV, but I support 16:9 because in the future when I do have 16:9 I want the extra resolution it can offer me. The same can be applied to DTS -- even if you don't have it, or your current system is too poor to expose the benefits of it, you should support it because in the future you too may have a system that benefits from it.


    All times are PST (US)

    next newest topic | next oldest topic

    Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
    Post New Topic  Post A Reply
    Hop to:

    Contact Us | DVD Channel News

    Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c

    Copyright © 1997-2018 Web Hosting by Psyphire - Terms of Use