Any comparison between two versions of "the same disc" (i.e Dolby vs. DTS or SACD/DVD-A vs. CD) cannot be taken seriously as you have no confidence that equal mastering techniques were used for those versions.
A SACD version of an album, for expample, might have much less audio compression applied to it (no clipping and overvolumed, distorted sound) compared to a CD version (which is usually overcompressed and distorted these days). This may apply to some extent to Dolby vs. DTS.
You simply can't be sure whether the perceived difference is caused by compression technique itself or by other factors (encoder implementation/settings used, digital audio processing employed etc.).
It has been confirmed that some hybrid SACD audio discs carried an intentionally squashed CD track to make SACD sound "superior" while, pure technically and biologically, vast majority of humans is not able to discern a 44/16 recording from a 96/24 one if proper mastering techniques and proper playback equipment are used for both. So they have to "help them hear the difference". What a BS!
A SACD version of an album, for expample, might have much less audio compression applied to it (no clipping and overvolumed, distorted sound) compared to a CD version (which is usually overcompressed and distorted these days). This may apply to some extent to Dolby vs. DTS.
You simply can't be sure whether the perceived difference is caused by compression technique itself or by other factors (encoder implementation/settings used, digital audio processing employed etc.).
It has been confirmed that some hybrid SACD audio discs carried an intentionally squashed CD track to make SACD sound "superior" while, pure technically and biologically, vast majority of humans is not able to discern a 44/16 recording from a 96/24 one if proper mastering techniques and proper playback equipment are used for both. So they have to "help them hear the difference". What a BS!