Did you love Laserdisc? Were you bonkers over Betamax? Do you cry yourself to sleep because BeOS never hit the big time? Fret no more -- superdork Captain Tech is here to travel back in time and save the format losers that should have triumphed.
2. Betamax
3. Laserdisc
4. 8-track
5. High-definition audio
7. BeOS
8. DTS
9. Atari ST
10. What life would be like
DTS
What it was
Digital Theater System was a digital surround-sound system, like the more familiar Dolby Digital. It launched in 1993 in 876 cinema screens across the US. There were some tests done with smaller movies, but the first blockbuster to frighten children with terrifying DTS sound was Jurassic Park.
Why it lost
Like most things, brand recognition is everything. The problem for DTS is that it only started in 1993 and its direct rival, Dolby, had been going since 1965. Nearly everyone had Dolby noise reduction on their compact cassettes, we've all heard of Dolby Stereo and Dolby Pro Logic for VHS, and these days there aren't many folks that haven't heard of Dolby Digital. DTS also suffered from a lack of decoder support. While all surround-sound systems support Dolby, the same can't be said for DTS.
Why it should have won
One of the great things about DTS in cinemas is that it greatly simplifies the process of releasing movies worldwide because, unlike Dolby, the sound isn't stored on the film print, but instead on a CD-ROM that's synchronised to the film using a timecode. This means that when releasing the film in France, say, you can simply replace the sound disc and use the same print.
DTS also has more scale in cinemas, theoretically. Say you wanted to have a cinema with 20 surround-sound speakers, there's no trouble with DTS. You simply add more CD-ROM hardware and you can synchronise as many channels as you like to the timecode.
When it comes to home cinema, DTS has the trump card too. It uses fractionally more space on the disc to create a less compressed sound than Dolby Digital, which uses 384Kbps. DTS has two modes, 768Kbps and 1,536Kbps.
HD DVD and Blu-ray get it even better, because these high-definition formats can both accommodate uncompressed DTS Master Audio, which is essentially identical to the soundtrack you get in the cinema.
Our fantasy outcome
To ensure a favourable outcome in this cinematic drama, Captain Tech would need to somehow launch DTS into the mainstream. To do this he'd probably have to persuade everyone in the film industry -- perhaps with the help of his new friend Mr Rex here -- to put DTS surround tracks on every DVD. Indeed, he might even have to persuade the DVD Forum to make it mandatory on all DVDs. It's tough, but there's nothing our boldly drawn time-travelling hero can't accomplish.
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
canberra_photographer
30/12/2007 01:16 AM
Doesn't wear out over time? Laserdisc was netoriuous for so called "laser rot" and the size and materials used meant that discs were easily scratched. I'll take VHS anyday, though I would have prefered beta!
Report offensive content
canberra_photographer
30/12/2007 01:32 AM
DTS a failure, every news Special Edition DVD has DTS from the major studios. They remastered the entire James Bond series into DTS and proudly make it a selling point. DTS is a success. MiniDisc over iPod, the iPod can hold uncompressed WAV audio, MP3, AAC. MD hold... ATRAC... and... well nothing else, just heavily compressed ATRAC. DTS is the only things in this list deserving of being saved. Even high def audio isn't. The world is moving towards digital content delivery through the internet.
Report offensive content
abuska
30/12/2007 07:07 PM
absolutely brilliant article guys.. thankyou
Report offensive content
Peterk
04/01/2008 10:59 AM
Our friend from the ACT is not aware of Hi-MD introduced in 2003/4. 1 gb minidiscs that could record many hours of music (highly compressed) and be used for jpeg, word and other comptuer files. ATRAC still sounds far superior to MP3
Report offensive content
canberra_photographer
11/01/2008 09:56 AM
An iPod is way better than those mini disc players because u would have to carry those mini-discs everywhere, and the iPod stores everything on its hard disk.
Report offensive content
two-ears-good,four-ears-better
29/05/2008 06:33 PM
Comparing iPod with Mini-disc is not really the point. The two are different products for different purposes. Can you do high-quality field recordings with an iPod? I doubt it. OTOH for the convenience of carrying around a great deal of reasonable quality music just to listen to, there are many MP3 hard-disc players around (not *just* iPod, let's remember!) which offer a more compact solution than Mini-disc. There are many other issues like battery life, battery replacement, add-ons, etc, etc. Neither technology wins on all points.
Report offensive content