Hi,
> Isn't there a 7.1 implementation for DTS now, or is that DD?
Not sure. I know that DTS-ES are either 6.1 or 3.2:1. Perhaps it is
considered as a 7.1 system because it uses two surrounds and two center
surrounds, plus 3 frontal and a subwoofer channel? Still, it would be a 6.1,
since both center surrounds would carry the same signal.
> And in some ways, DTS, sound-wise, isn't particularly lagging behind DD -
> probably one of the main reasons why many DTS DVDs are perceived to have
> better soundtracks, being less compression over the DD equivalents.
Maybe so (I am not so sure there is a huge difference between DD or DTS).
But DD's lower bandwidth requirements and multichannel capabilities make it
a logical format for DVD and HDTV. Where high fidelity, multichannel
applications need to be met, there is DVD-A, with Meridian Lossless Packing
and 192/24 resolution. This leaves DTS in a very uncomfortable position:
it's not sufficiently hi-fi to met audiophiles' requirements, and it's not
compact enough to be viable for HDTV of DVDs with lots of extras. That's the
reason DTS had to lower their bandwidth requirements to **half of the
original spec** in many DVDs, killing their hi-fi inclinations in the
process.
And yes, the discussion can be brought full circle to MD again. How? Well,
there is this theatre sound system, which uses *8* channels of digital,
discrete sound, invented before DTS-ES and DD-EX were born. It is used
worldwide. It was produced by Sony. The name? SDDS. Their compression
scheme? ATRAC. =)
Francisco.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
