On 29 November 2019, Pink Floyd Records will release ‘Pink Floyd The Later Years’, an 18-disc set (5xCDs, 6xBlu-Rays, 5xDVDs, 2x7” plus exclusive photo book and memorabilia) covering the material created by David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright from 1987 onwards. Jan 16, 2019  The Wall SACD in 5.1 will be done by James Guthrie if and when it ever gets released. A 40th anniversary release would be a great time to release the SACD if it's done. I'm holding out hope that there will be a 5.1 release of Animals. Pink Floyd: The Wall 5.1 coming to SACD says James Guthrie superdeluxeedition.

This arrived while I was on vacation along with a few other great recent releases. So, I've been working my way through them all and tonight was the night for The Division Bell. First of all, I had never heard The Division Bell. In fact, I had never even heard of The Division Bell. I got some background on the release in a Wikipedia posting. My sweet spot for Pink Floyd was the Dark Side of the Moon Era. I was in college when that came out.

So, my main exposure to Pink Floyd are the original quad releases like DSOTM, WYWH and Atom Heart Mother. I've listened to some of the earlier Floyd releases, but by 1994 Pink Floyd was not on my radar. So, I was completely unaware that this album was even released. With that said, and taking into account that this album that is new to me is actually a decade old, I think it is a really decent album coming so far after a classic like Dark Side of the Moon. There are some artists who just can't seem to be able to reproduce the magic of their earlier work in later years. The Division Bell is not on a level with DSOTM or WYWH, but you definitely know you are listening to a Floyd album.

I certainly don't agree with Roger Waters assessment when it came out when he stated, 'Rubbish. Just nonsense from beginning to end.' For me, it is one of those recordings I was able to enjoy from start to finish the first time through. The surround mixing is very well executed.

It's a very enveloping mix. Lot's of very discrete placement of instruments. I did not stand with an ear to my center speaker to hear if anything was mixed to center at all, but it sounds like little is and I certainly don't miss it. Living in a small condo with neighbors who are a pain in the ass, I also didn't miss there not being a lot that was booming from the subwoofer and shaking my walls and floor. Overall, I think this is a great release and a really impressive surround mix by Andy Jackson. I am rating it a 9.

Please post your thoughts and comments on this 2014 release from Pink Floyd of. 28 Blu-Ray-Audio, 116 Audio-DVD/DTS-CDs. Pink Floyd - The Division Bell [DVD DTS.

My 'Division Bell' DVD arrived last friday. In my opinion this album is not on the level of 'Dark Side' or 'Wish You Were Here' concerning the musical quality, not even close. But there are songs i liked very much and the DVD was not too expensive. So i thought i give it a try. And who is Andy Jackson, never heard any 5.1-Mix from this man??

Why did Pink Floyd not choose the famous James G., Elliot S. One hour later, after being in perfect surround heaven, i asked myself: Why didn`t Pink Floyd let Andy Jackson do the mixes for 'Dark Side' and 'Wish You Were Here'. Even my wife, who ignores every fantastic 5.1 Mix i show her, was fascinated when she heard 'Keep talking'!! 7 for content, 13 for mix - makes 10 for this poll. Is there nowhere to order this dvd from? I have emailed the PinkFloyd site asking when they will have it in stock again. They do not allow you to preorder this, only to add it to a wishlist.

Pink Floyd The Wall Cd

I am getting disturbed and jealous. Guess I missed out by not jumping on this. I was never big on TDB. I pulled out my almost 20 year old cd and listened a few times and some of the songs grew on me.

Good enuf to enjoy in surround. My God does this mean I must listen to a momentary lapse of reason and reassess??? Very happy Warner/PF made this DVD available at a normal price. I've had the CD for twenty years and haven't played it for some time, this DVD complements it ideally (no extra vinyl, booklets, gadgets).

Too often in this thread comparisons with DSotM and WYWH are made. IMO you should compare this to the David Gilmour solo albums.

Then it comes out on top. Pink Floyd 1987 was still a band with 3 former members, but the newer material had taken a slightly different direction. I'll will play it again before I vote, I'm on a 9 at the moment. Pink Floyd is one of my top three band/artists of all time.

However, 'The Division Bell' rates pretty low on the PF scale for me. Even though I think Roger Waters had a case of sour grapes when the band split. His artistic contributions gave them that edge / bit of rebellion / political commentary that I had deemed essential to the spirit of the band. When 'Momentary Lapse Of Reason' emerged, I was all for it and even though it was a bit tame for a PF album, I loved it. I think Gilmour, Wright, and Mason did a great job of trying to retain the feeling of a traditional PF album. Including David's screaming guitar solos and psychedelic noodling. So when TDB came out, you could say I had 'High Hopes' for it.

I think TDB is good, but to put it bluntly, a bit boring to sit through from beginning to end. Now this is all subjective, and everyone has their own opinions, but to put it in perspective, I personally prefer 'The Final Cut' and the Gilmour solo albums to this one.

I must say that the tour that followed the release of TDB was excellent, second to none and a must see for any PF fan. Now, once again I have high hopes for 'The Endless River'. It would be great if it was released in 5.1 from the start. OK, all that being said, I love what Andy Jackson's mix did for this album, a stellar job! His surround mix brings new life to it.

I believe his mixing style is the perfect balance between the discreteness of an Alan Parsons mix and the fullness of a James Guthrie mix. So if I were King, I would have Andy mix the remaining Floyd albums in 5.1. (I'm sure I'll be grateful for whatever we get!) The inclusion of the video, 'Marooned' in 5.1 is a nice bonus feature. I too am glad that there was a lower cost option to experience the 5.1 mix. I would have preferred a stand alone Blu-ray, but the DTS option is good and feel no need to get the box set. The packaging is another matter altogether.

How pathetic! If you compare this package to say the value of the 5.1 set of Jethro Tull - A Passion Play.well, there is no comparison. I will just print a jewel case liner and put it in a CD case for storage. To sum up, the 5.1 DVD DTS/DD disc sounds great, the mix is stellar, the content is fair to good, and the packaging sucks. I will give it an 8.

Is there nowhere to order this dvd from? I have emailed the PinkFloyd site asking when they will have it in stock again. They do not allow you to preorder this, only to add it to a wishlist. I am getting disturbed and jealous. Guess I missed out by not jumping on this. I was never big on TDB.

I pulled out my almost 20 year old cd and listened a few times and some of the songs grew on me. Good enuf to enjoy in surround. My God does this mean I must listen to a momentary lapse of reason and reassess??? I am with you. Just a wish list at this point?

Once again the market does not care what people want and tries to force us to buy what we don't. I am with you. Just a wish list at this point? Once again the market does not care what people want and tries to force us to buy what we don't. This really sucks if they don't make more for sale. In some ways, it's gratifying that it sold out, but comon, they really need to get this stuff out there and how can they do that if there are none to sell. All it does is make the aftermarket/eBay fiends money hungry.

It also leads to rampant file sharing. Sometimes these labels just don't seem to stop shooting themselves in the foot. People WANT to buy product, yet there is no product.

Q: 'What do you want from me?' - A: Sufficient Stock! This really sucks if they don't make more for sale. In some ways, it's gratifying that it sold out, but comon, they really need to get this stuff out there and how can they do that if there are none to sell. All it does is make the aftermarket/eBay fiends money hungry. It also leads to rampant file sharing. Sometimes these labels just don't seem to stop shooting themselves in the foot.

People WANT to buy product, yet there is no product. Q: 'What do you want from me?' - A: Sufficient Stock! I want to order as well. As this is a fave of mine. I'm sure there will be pirated versions showing up very soon at this rate. And this time it was caused by the record companies incompetence.

The vinyl is already circulating in pirated form. Maybe there will be a silver lining. Is it possible that they are re-thinking and deciding to release a stand alone blu ray? Why produce two different digital surround versions? Let's hope they've just been taken by surprise at the (thoroughly deserved) popularity of the DVD and get more to market quickly.Neil, I don't think it has to do with how many were sold or requested; just a production issue(manufacturing). The PF store told me about this several weeks ago. They have been very responsive in my dealings with them.

They basically get 'stuck in the middle' when issues like this arise as information from the top only 'trickles down' to them; as opposed to the free flow of information you would like to see in any business arrangement. I know people get upset and like to vent on places like forums; just hopefully they don't take their anger out on the PF store.

Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types. We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback. Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio. Here's what we collectively came up with: Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already. Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio.

Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs. 24 bit 'word length'? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers? Any comments?

Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types. We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback.

Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio.

Here's what we collectively came up with: Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already. Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio. Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs.

24 bit 'word length'? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers? Any comments? I would at first suggest expanding your (Various) music choices to include some jazz, classical and R&B. IMHO slower type music gives you a chance to really evaluate the true sound of any disk (when you can hear each instrument). I remember back in 84 when CD's were coming out and I went to a local HiFi shop in the New England area. The sales person put in a Classical CD and my ears and jaw just hit the floor.

I don't really care for this form of music, but hearing every little sound so clear (by those standards then) was just awesome. Now with High Rez form of music out there (192/24-bit, 96/24-bit & 48/24-bit) the sound is much fuller and rich almost like sitting in on a studio session. IMHO live music (concerts) is not all that good in this format and that may be why I prefer the jazz style in High Rez. You hear each and every note from all insturment. I would ask you to try Donald.en Nightfly DVD-A and play it on the DTS mode and sit back and close your eyes.

And you should not have to play any of the test disk at high volume to hear the difference. Admittedly there was no classical music sampled.we just didn't have one.

However plenty of jazzy bluesy stuff in Diana Krall and slower music with Neil Young. Truth be told, the most spectacular of the bunch was the somewhat progressive passages in Metallica's album. I do agree that the slower jazzy selections would offer a more noticeable difference but that being said, if a format is suppose to be better, it should noticeable regardless of the type of music being played. I have no doubt DVD-A is superior to CD. But our test was to compare basic DVD-video DTS and Dolby Digital recordings to the same recording on CD, not DVD-audio hi-res 5.1 formats.

We generally found the Dolby Digital (448 kbps) to be superior to CD Audio's sound despite giving up bit rate. I'm just trying to find an easy answer as to why?

I'm assuming bit-rate isn't the all important factor. For MP3's and similar formats, generally, the better the bitrate, the better the sound. Why doesn't this hold true for the CD vs.

Dolby Digital or DTS? I can only assume it has to do with sampling rate or 24bit 'wordlength' producing more resolution. We did compare the multi channel, but we were listening for detail. We also compared 2.0 Dolby Digital, on a few which still clearly sounded more detailed and natural. Maybe this is the norm, but I was previously under the impression that Dolby Digital and DTS were lossy forms of compression that didn't quite measure up to CD (which is limited in itself). CD is not a lossy format, DD and DTS are.

CD is limited to human perception capability, or the vast majority of it. Perhaps your listening protocol has something to do with this? One may have been a little louder than the other? We had to adjust volumes, as the DVD's generally seemed louder than CD source. I understand the lossy encoding nature of DTS/DD. I wonder, since DTS has a higher bitrate than CD audio, and both have higher sampling rates and use 24 bit wordlengths, does this over come the 'lossy compression' set back?

Is it possible that compressing a 24 bit, 48 kHz audio track could sound better than CD's 44.1 kHz, 16 bit signal without compression? What I'm really looking for is a decent article or link comparing the three formats, I haven't been able to find one that compare sound quality with fundamentals to support the analysis. We had to adjust volumes, as the DVD's generally seemed louder than CD source.

I understand the lossy encoding nature of DTS/DD. I wonder, since DTS has a higher bitrate than CD audio, and both have higher sampling rates and use 24 bit wordlengths, does this over come the 'lossy compression' set back?

Is it possible that compressing a 24 bit, 48 kHz audio track could sound better than CD's 44.1 kHz, 16 bit signal without compression? What I'm really looking for is a decent article or link comparing the three formats, I haven't been able to find one that compare sound quality with fundamentals to support the analysis.

DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking. Same with DD or any perceptual coding. The bit rate is not everything but the algorythm used is.

That is what calculates and discards inaudible signals. DTS/DD has 5.1 channels too, so that may explain what you may be thinking. I am not aware of any reliable DBT comparisons on the three. DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking. Same with DD or any perceptual coding. The bit rate is not everything but the algorythm used is. That is what calculates and discards inaudible signals.

DTS/DD has 5.1 channels too, so that may explain what you may be thinking. I am not aware of any reliable DBT comparisons on the three. Impossible to do a DBT like you specify given that there are no soundtracks I'm aware of that have two-channel 16/44.1 PCM, DD, and DTS tracks that were encoded simultaneously. Three of my friends and I performed a little test this weekend, comparing 5 albums of various music types.

We used my friend's setup: a Yamaha RX-V1400, with Paradigm speakers - 6 Studio 20's, a PW-2100 and the CC-470 for playback. Older Yamaha CD player and Panasonic DVD player were used. The goal was to determine if DD/DTS audio tracks sounded better than CD audio.

Here's what we collectively came up with: Metallica (Black Album) - Definitely better in DD than CD audio in stereo Diana Krall - Live in Paris - Again, DTS better than the CD audio version Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon - 5.1 DD has won the test already. Neal Young - Harvest - Don't know if it was the recording or what, but 2-channel stereo won out over 5.1 audio The Eagles - Hell Freezes Over - 3 votes to 1 in favour of DTS over CD Audio. Now, is there some technical information I can use to support the results of this admittedly subjective test? Is it bit rate/sec, sampling rates, 16 vs. 24 bit 'word length'? Or do we just subjectively prefer the added ambience a 5.1 music source delivers? Any comments?

Very interesting results, although I would caution that you're comparing surround tracks with two-channel tracks, and there are lot of other variables at play other than the formats themselves. For example, in order to put together a 5.1 soundtrack for an older recording, the mixing engineer needs to actually go all the way back to the multichannel master tape, which might have significantly different tonal characteristics than what ultimately made its way down to the original two-channel master tape (a lot of vinyl masters had EQ and/or compression applied, and the CD transfers were done from these without compensating for this). Also, keep in mind that a lot of CDs have had multiple remasterings done, so different versions of the CD releases can also sound different (a lot of the early transfers were not done properly). I've done similar comparisons with all sources folded down to two-channel, but even that method is flawed given that the channel balances between two-channel and repurposed 5.1 mixes can be very different, and create a dissimiar sound overall even in two-channel. In general, I've noted that DD can come very close to the audio quality of the CD versions, and can be superior in some cases (these were all two-channel direct comparisons). These differences could have more to do with the mastering or other source differences. In cases where I know that the DD and DTS tracks were encoded simultaneously at identical levels, the DTS track typically sounds subtly better.

I think for now, it's a good subjective comparison for the various versions of those specific recordings. Whether or not those listenings can be applied more widely is where some caution's in order. DTS cannot be higher bit rate than CD as it is perceptually coded, information is discarded that is deemed inaudible due to masking.

Mtrycraft: I admit to being very inexperienced with the technical details of digital formats, so I have to ask a question here. Every source I've been able to find tells me CD audio quality's bit rate is 1.4Mb/s, whereas DTS bit rate is 1.5 Mb/s.

Masking and encoding aside, my simple math gives me a +0.1 edge to DTS over CD. What am I doing wrong here? How is 1.5 not bigger, or more than 1.4??? My head is starting to hurt. I do agree with you, bitrate isn't everything, one has only to compare MP3 with WMA files to realize that. Still, my admittedly subjective test left me somewhat embarassed, as I previously had been telling my friends that there was no way a DVD concert's audio quality could top that of a CD.boy was I wrong. It may be that you have proved that your system is better at surround sound that at stereo.

Repeating the experiment in a 2 channel only environment might yield very different results (it did for me). Also worth mentioning that when I have compared DVD's to CD's using the 44.1/16 bit soundtrack on the DVD the CD has generally sounded way better. Case in point Elton John double album of greatest hits which I have on DVD, CD and vinyl.

The DVD is so bad in comparison to the other 2 it aint funny. I have other examples (but cant remember them as I type): As for your DTS throughput figure - that is for 6 channels of audio as compared to CD's 2 channels.

DTS does seem to sound better than the equivalent DD5.1 tracks but I am not sure for music it beats CD (in 2 channel format). Maxg: You are very much right. The CD in 2 channel sounded a way more real than Dolby Digital in stereo, I wouldn't compare those two formats. 2-Channel Dolby Digital seemed to have way too much bass output at the sub, had to be turned back a bit. Might just be the setup we used.

As far as my 'test' results go, I don't think I've found much at all, nothing of any reasonable value to anyone at least. If everyone would go back and read the original post, you'll see I was looking for any kind of scientific support to reinforce our very subjective test.

Like any subjective test, 4 different people could use the same equipment, the same sources, and have the opposite results too. I was just wondering if there was any science out there to support our result.don't think I'm going to find it now.

At this point, I might consider doing the test again, but with a soundmeter to more accurately measure volumes. I also wonder how much the studio engineering influences the results.maybe more detail was given to the 5.1 tracks than the stereo tracks? I don't know. Thanks to all who have posted, by the way.some food for thought. Mtrycraft: I admit to being very inexperienced with the technical details of digital formats, so I have to ask a question here. Every source I've been able to find tells me CD audio quality's bit rate is 1.4Mb/s, whereas DTS bit rate is 1.5 Mb/s.

Masking and encoding aside, my simple math gives me a +0.1 edge to DTS over CD. What am I doing wrong here? How is 1.5 not bigger, or more than 1.4??? My head is starting to hurt. I do agree with you, bitrate isn't everything, one has only to compare MP3 with WMA files to realize that. Still, my admittedly subjective test left me somewhat embarassed, as I previously had been telling my friends that there was no way a DVD concert's audio quality could top that of a CD.boy was I wrong. I am pretty sure that DTS bit rate is for all channels, not one channel as in CD.

That would make DTS bit rate of about 7.5Mbits/sec+. I seriously doubt that. Why not ask Sir Terrence at HT. Mtrycraft: That would better explain the relative file sizes between CD and DTS tracks, good thinking man. Curious, if theres a bit of information being translated back into audio information, does it matter what channel it is emitted from as long as the sound is being reproduced? Certainly each channel in stereo would have more detail than its counterpart in 5.1, but the cumulative effect.never mind.I'm obviously in way over my head.sigh.getting old. Well, I've opened a whole can of worms with this thread.

Curious as I am, I have to know how and why everything works, sometimes at the expense of enjoyment. I'm going to have to learn to get past that. Things were so much simple with vinyl. Curious, if theres a bit of information being translated back into audio information, does it matter what channel it is emitted from as long as the sound is being reproduced? Certainly each channel in stereo would have more detail than its counterpart in 5.1, but the cumulative effect.never mind.I'm obviously in way over my head.sigh.getting old. Well, I've opened a whole can of worms with this thread.

Curious as I am, I have to know how and why everything works, sometimes at the expense of enjoyment. I'm going to have to learn to get past that. Things were so much simple with vinyl. No it doesnt matter which channel is being reproduced. It does matter, however, when there are 6 channels being reproduced together. Vinyl has its own complexities but ultimately is probably more simple to understand. Another reason I have re-embrased it.

I am pretty sure that DTS bit rate is for all channels, not one channel as in CD. That would make DTS bit rate of about 7.5Mbits/sec+.

I seriously doubt that. Why not ask Sir Terrence at HT. The Dts bit rate is spread over the 5.1 channels. For DVD the bitrate is 1509kbps. To understand how Dts(and DD potentially)can sound better than 16/44.1 you must understand how the encoding process works. To put in in simple terms Dts encoding discards signals that are masked and rendered inaudible by louder adjacient signals(precedence effect) Once those signals are discarded the encoding process breaks down these signals by frequency. These signals are encoded into the Dts bitstream at 20 bit depths.

So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution. Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range. Where Dts has the edge over DD lies in Dts's ability to encode not only the primary signals, but it also codes the sub band frequencies as well because it has the bits to do so.

One would think that uncompressed 16/44.1khz PCM should sound better than compressed 20/48khz. But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail.

Dts and DD more efficiently code signals that ARE heard with more resolution, lower noise and greater dynamic range(CD has a dynamic range of 96 db and Dts has about 120db). So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution.

Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range. This can only be true if the master had the 20 bit depth. If your source is only 16 bits, that is all you can hope to ever get. But I would defer this to better experts in th efield, beyond both of us. But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail. Yes, That is exactely why perceptual coding works so well.

So what you hear is 16/44.1khz signals at 20/48khz resolution. Because more bits are used, and a slightly higher sample rate, you get lower noise and greater dynamic range. This can only be true if the master had the 20 bit depth. If your source is only 16 bits, that is all you can hope to ever get. But I would defer this to better experts in th efield, beyond both of us. But 16/44.1khz contains signals that are heard, and unheard so in theory because of the masking effect of louder signals in relationship to the softer unheard signals, you are not hearing more detail.

Yes, That is exactely why perceptual coding works so well. Well Mtry, its not as simple as 16 bits is all you get when you speak of encoding to Dts(or any high bit perceptual encoder). Remember, during the coding process you are getting rid of unheard signals. That includes the floor noise, and any signal that have louder adjoining signals. It is then re-encoded at 20bits at 48khz sampling.

While the sampling doesn't necessarily raise the cutoff frequency(the 16bit audio has already limited that to 22.050khz) you will lower the noise floor and get an increase in dynamic range as a result. The audio is also reclocked(which would reduce any process inducing jitter) which aids in smoothing the more complex instrument textures(strings, cymbal crashes glocks and high brass). So you may only have a 16 bit master, but there are some 20 bit performance features you get from coding the information at 20 bits. 2 channel redbook audio cd if mastered properly will sound better than DD or DTS anyday for the simple reason that both DTS and DD use lossy compressions.The test that you did proves any of the following: 1.Your audio setup is better for movies than stereo. 2.Some audio cds are mastered very badly.There is a chance that the newer DTS or DD version could have done a better job.THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT DD OR DTS FORMAT IS BETTER.

There are good and bad recordings in every formats. How a performance is captured and how well it is encoded in LP, CD. Or DVD is what matters. The recording engieners or the studio has lot to do in making excellent or lousy recordings in whatever media.

The exception being the cassette format which is really technically inferiror as an analog medium. But I tend to agree with Sir Terenece's brillant laymanish explanation of the difference between CD and DD/DTS. At first glance you would think that because DD/DTS uses lossy compression versus uncompressed encoding in CDs, that the former is inferior. But psychoaccoustic-based compressions simply discard what are unnesessary in the encoding process, thus leaving more room for the more audible segments of the musical passage to get more bits. CD's uncompressed format allocates the same 16-bit word length even for complete silence. I consider that an unnecessary waste.

Hence, DD/DTS sound works wonderfully to make prominent instruments sound more detailed. I, too, have experienced hearing some sonic detailing and spatial depth in DD/DTS that I did not hear with CDs of the same title.

Even the instrumental balance is different. I cannot say outright that DD/DTS is better, Some are. Like I said there are good and bad titles in every format.

DD/DTS definitely sound dfifferent in a way that gives a totally new listening experience. I can only assume that the reocrding engineers who revisited the old multi-track masters did a good job at remixing into multi-channel and DD or DTS format. I can speak of the George Benson Breezin' reocridng which I had as an LP, then CD and now in DVD-Audio where I only play the DD tracks as I still don't have a universal player. Same with Fourplay, I have the CD and the DVD-A. Much as I am a stereophile, I must admit I get more instrumental detailing and depth in multi-channel playback of these recodings. However, I must admit that not all DD/DTS transcriptions are an improvement over their CD counterpart. I find The King and I DVD soundtrack no better that the CD soundtrack.

Same with the Fiddler On The Roof. However, the My Fair Lady DVD sound has more body than the CD soundtrack of the same.

But that's just me. 2 channel redbook audio cd if mastered properly will sound better than DD or DTS anyday for the simple reason that both DTS and DD use lossy compressions.The test that you did proves any of the following: 1.Your audio setup is better for movies than stereo. 2.Some audio cds are mastered very badly.There is a chance that the newer DTS or DD version could have done a better job.THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT DD OR DTS FORMAT IS BETTER. This information isn't quite correct. All a lossey codec does is pack signals more efficently. Any signals removed are below the threshold of hearing anyway, so it doesn't matter that there are discarded.

2 channel redbook CD does not have the dynamic range or the spatial deminsionality of either Dts or DD. Redbook CD does not have the flexibilty of bitrate, bit depth, or sample rate that Dts has.

Redbook CD does not have the LFE channel which can be used for more bass impact. Dts(and DD for that matter) can have a lower noise floor than redbook CD. A well mastered Dts CD with the highest bit rate can sound identical to the master tape. It also has the benefit of multichannel to properly place ambience where it belongs, to the sides and rear. It can operate on the fly, and transparently in a lossey, or lossless mode depending on the complexity of the original PCM signal. Cleanmymac 1 9 5 keygenguru.

So to say the redbook CD will sound better than Dts and DD based on the sole fact that they are lossey is not factual and just shows a lack of understanding of lossey codecs, and how they encode audio. I agree with most of the posts here, just want to add something. 1) Perfectly agree with the fact that it all depends, first of all, on the mixing. If the music is not recorded and mixed with quality, there is nothing no good raw material to encode.

And unfortunately this happens too many times. 2) It depends on your gear. Using a cheap reciever, not really good speakers, and using junk cables, one probably has nothing to worry about these differences. 3) I suppose that you meant PCM vs DD or DTS. CDs can be encoded both in PCM (Pulse code modulation) AND in DTS. PCM requires lots of space, because it has a lot of data.

(used either for silence, so there is really alot of infomation, non compressed, but is not the music you hear (or your gear is reproducing), it's just a lot of data. DD and DTS has less data, but more 'audible' ones. PCM doesn't sound good 'because' it is a better tecnology. The same music, if recorded both in PCM, DD, and DTS, with the same mixing effort (including artistical capacity, that you can't measoure) will sound well in PCM, some better in DD, and much better in DTS. (The best would be in SACD.) Unofrtunately there are really few recordings done in all these formats. What's more, i would add that is quite frustrating to have a +20000 system, to spend more tha 1k bucks on cables, and to find out that 90% of the dvd's are not much better then your old stereo VCR.

There is a lot of tecnology, but unfortunately we are lacking artists. Like having a lot of painting, but no designers or painters. Now some tech data.

DD compresses a 5.1 soundtrack to 448k. It is capable to 640, but being part of the DVD standard, it is limited to 448.

DTS uses 1.4Mbps for CD and 1.5 for movies. Dolby sais that they have a better compression pattern. But not 3.4 times better.

This is why the audio of the DTS movies (concerts etc) souns better. When the original recording is better. By standard (LAW) every DVD has to have a PCM (stereo, what you would got on the cd) track, a DD track, and some a DTS track.

Good sound (if the recording is good). Swithc to DD. You will hear that is worst. Swithc to PCM. First I must say that while this is kind of interesting to compare all this, it really is a BAD test for so many reasons. First to be more accurate in comparing these codecs, stereo versions of Dolby, DTS, and CD at max bit rates would be more fair. That isn't possible, so it's a funky way to compare everything at best.

Next, it wasn't clear just what kind of Dolby and DTS tracks were compared. There are a lot of numbers being thrown around, but they are not set in stone. Yes DTS has a max bit rate of 1.5mb, and DD 448, (the higher one is never used). But for movies the 1.5mb rate is RARE! The rate most commonly used for DTS video is the 754K rate, not the 1.5mb. The max DTS bit rate on a movie would absolutely smoke up space like you wouldn't believe. Next, the max for DD is 448, but the 348?

Rate is quite common as well. When comparing DTS to anything it should be made clear what kind of DTS disc is being used.

If it's a concert DTS title, it might run at the 700+ K rate, not the max. A DTS music CD does run at over 1.4mb and that rate is fixed. Also, what dark side of the moon in DD 5.1 is that? I know the DSOTM 'making of' is dolby stereo only isn't that correct?

So what version is this? As for the compression techniques used, it goes far beyond simply being technically lossy. There are other tricks going on to compress the data while making the fewest changes to the sound (that can be percieved).

I bet most people don't know that DD is no longer stereo past 15kHz. To save space, sounds above that become mono. Many would argue that at 15k sounds aren't as noticable. DTS has many similar tricks as well.

I tend to shy away from DTS, MP3 etc based on theory alone. The very basis of these codecs is to CHANGE the sound to make other things possible. Whether or not I or anyone else can tell is kinda beside the point. For DVD movies DD and DTS work just fine. But in the case of music we now have SACD and DVD-A, so the CD vs DTS thing is Soooo late 1990's. Sorry I couldn't resist;0) As for CD not being lossy, the isn't entirely true.

PCM by its very nature is lossy if you really think about it. Without decimation, a CD would hold like what? 3 minutes of music? Even having said all that, I have come across plenty of DD, DTS and CD that sound really good. But comparing them in this fashion is just plain weird. The dolby 2.0 tracks run at about 180+K? And DTS stereo doesn't really exist, except maybe as an artificial down-mix.

More thoughts to ponder - Tony.