You don't need to be sorry! DTS is higher quality Audio with much less compression than Dolby Digital. It provides a sound that is very clear. Dolby Digital is good but not that good.
http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...s-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats
Once again, I'd bet that neither your ears or playback equipment is capable of hearing the differences. I know audiophiles. Most of them are audiophools, who will believe ANYTHING the market tries to sell them. Yes, DTS uses less compression than AC3, but that alone does not guarantee it will sound better. Each of my HiFi systems use between $5000 and $10,000 worth of sound gear. Most of the differences between a movie that carries both AC3 and DTS (i.e. on DVDs) are volume level differences. In fact, most of the differences people think they hear with MOST sources are volume related issues (people always say the louder one sounds better unless it's openly distorting; this is why radio stations always compress the heck out of music so their station sounds "louder" than everyone else's, but they will do it to the point where it sounds like crap, but seeing as most people's car stereos, etc. are also crap, they won't notice or care, but will notice a louder station over a quieter one).
One example is that people say Pink Floyd's "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" doesn't sound as good as previous analog recordings by Pink Floyd. What they don't notice is that Momentarys' levels are quiter becaues it has larger dynamic range (i.e. better quality sound) and this means you have to turn the volume up to experience it properly. But people only notice at the same settings, it's too quiet and they call that crappy sounding.
Basically, what I see in this thread is a lot of claims designed to put down AppleTV. Claims of 'blurry' pictures are unsubstantiated and quite frankly just plain untrue. Using DTS is a strawman argument. The sound quality differences between a given film's soundtrack versus other soundtracks is almost always much greater than any differences between the compression variances of AC3 and DTS. While DTS uses less compression, it's compression is also less sophisticated than AC3 and the differences don't stand up nearly as well under double blind testing as they do among DTS proponents' larger than life claims.
The average consumer does not have high-end video or high-end audio gear. They do not sit 3 feet from their 50" 1080P sets so the differences between 1080P and 720P in general fall below the eye's resolving power therefore muting the differences/improvements between resolutions for the vast majority of the public thus all the puffed up talk about 1080P and people paying considerably more money to get 1080P "smallish" sets are completely overblown and largely a marketing gimmick. 1080P on a 32" set is great if it's your computer monitor sitting 1-3 feet from your body. At 6 feet, it makes no difference at all for the same sized picture as your eyes cannot tell the difference anyway. People don't know this and the sale margins are 1080P sets are much higher than 720P so of course they push the 1080P sets. Now if you have a 100" screen and are sitting under 10 feet from it, you CAN benefit from 1080P, but be prepared to pay a premium for it (3-5x more) for the time being.
All of this makes the arguments for Blu-Ray much less convincing for me. Saying uncompressed (Blu-Ray is NOT uncompressed, BTW, just LESS compressed) is always better doesn't tell you much about the state or quality of compression out there. Just like someone saying MP3s are garbage sonically and therefore CDs are the only way to go as they uncompressed digital doesn't tell you much about MP3s coded at 192kbit or above or using variable compression techniques or that perhaps the MP3s using 24-bit/96kHz might sound better than uncompressed 16-bit audio, particularly if the compressed sound is 5.1 channel music and the 16-bit CD is only stereo. Perception is a tricky thing and sometimes people are fooled into hearing what they want to hear or believe they will hear. This is why double blind tests exist. It's also why most audiophile magazines do NOT use double blind tests because they stand to sell more ads if they can claim a $5000 amplifier sounds better than a $500 one.
So if you're going to try to make an argument that AppleTV and the PS3 are "apples to apples" comparisons, prepared to be continually called on it because they are not the same device. One is designed to play $30 purchased HD movies and video games and one is designed to rent HD and SD movies, purchase missed tv shows and stream your music and/or video collection around the house with ease. Some os us have or plan to have both eventually. This wouldn't be true if they shared the identical functions.
Given the length of this thread and the claims still being made and argued by the thread poster, I have to conclude the entire thread is a strawman argument designed to promote Sony products if only for the reason claiming it works better for you does not create the need for multiple page arguments on the issue. If it works better for you, great. Your original post would have sufficed. If you want to argue the PS3 and AppleTV are the SAME device, but PS3 is much better, your argument is without merit as they are clearly NOT the same device, even if a few functions overlap.
TV is about convenience and content. Nobody has made the argument that downloaded content is equal to the quality of BD. 
