dolby or dts

probedb · 20 Feb 2009 at 09:44

scott212 said:
Same principle: If you compare a 320kbps MP3 file and a Flac file through your average PC speakers they'd sound identical. If you did the same with a pair of BMW 683s and a 150W/channel amplifier, the MP3 would sound like listening to internet radio through a 56k modem.

It really wouldn't.

oli collett · 20 Feb 2009 at 10:37

scott212 said:
Same principle: If you compare a 320kbps MP3 file and a Flac file through your average PC speakers they'd sound identical. If you did the same with a pair of BMW 683s and a 150W/channel amplifier, the MP3 would sound like listening to internet radio through a 56k modem.

Absolute rubbish.

krisboats · 20 Feb 2009 at 12:26

You really can tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a flac, and i wouldn't say my equipment is amazing. Okay he exagerated a little, but it is noticeable if you know what your listening for.

Johnnytoxic · 20 Feb 2009 at 12:46

With Blu-ray DTS and Dolby now offer lossless so obviously there will be nothing in it.

RobK · 20 Feb 2009 at 13:00

I always thought DTS on Laserdisc was incredible; it was way better than the AC3 soundtrack and better than DTS or Dolby Digital on any DVD I've heard.

probedb · 20 Feb 2009 at 14:52

krisboats said:
You really can tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a flac, and i wouldn't say my equipment is amazing. Okay he exagerated a little, but it is noticeable if you know what your listening for.

Have you done ABX testing? Or did you play the MP3 file and listen then the FLAC and play. The only place I trust for audio comparisons is hydrogen-audio, basically because you'd already have broken their TOS with your post, i.e. making statements like that with nothing to back it up.

It's simple to ABX with foobar and you might be surprised

I use Westone UM-2s and apart from some extreme examples I can't abx FLAC from LAME at -V 3 (320kbps is pointless really, VBR is more useful).

But anyways sorry for taking this off topic!

I think DTS on LD used the full 1536Kbps bitrate didn't it? The only problem with it was there was no other soundtrack on the disc, no analogue audio either.

But as already said, with lossless tracks it all becomes irrelevant assuming the same master is used for both along with the same sampling frequency and bit-depth.

Grimley · 20 Feb 2009 at 16:32

This old chestnut of an argument pops up on almost every AV online forum I go on

I wouldn't post this question over at AV forums if I were you.

FTR I prefer DTS.

RSR · 20 Feb 2009 at 17:34

DTS for me.

TheBull · 21 Feb 2009 at 01:52

This picture explains it doesn't it?

probedb · 23 Feb 2009 at 14:00

TheBull said:
This picture explains it doesn't it?

No, bitrate isn't everything. When I got into an argument with an editor over on WHFs forum about lossless compression and PCM soundtracks I lost what little faith I had lost in that magazine anyways.

Demon · 24 Feb 2009 at 10:01

Would I also be right in saying that for example, DD @ 448KBits has to deal with 6 discrete channels? lets, ignore the LFE channel, and call it 5 channels, does the effectively mean there is much less then 100 kbps per channel?

I do agree that the way the audio is engineered can make more a difference then the actual compression used, but I do find in general, when a DTS track is included I do prefer it, this maybe the case that they clearly care about the sound, and have not only put effort into engineering it well in the first place, and then encoding with the better bandwidth availalble, the end result being a very good soundtrack.

probedb · 24 Feb 2009 at 14:13

Demon said:
Would I also be right in saying that for example, DD @ 448KBits has to deal with 6 discrete channels? lets, ignore the LFE channel, and call it 5 channels, does the effectively mean there is much less then 100 kbps per channel?

No, the bandwidth will be allocated between channels as required as far as I know.

SinaiSound · 24 Feb 2009 at 22:32

Anyone here have any DTS laserdiscs?

Still sound amazing

Shame about the picture quality though

beavis · 24 Feb 2009 at 23:48

I understood DTS includes a separate channel for the sub, DD does not. I could be wrong .

james.miller · 25 Feb 2009 at 00:03

they both do

krisboats · 25 Feb 2009 at 06:41

probedb said:
Have you done ABX testing? Or did you play the MP3 file and listen then the FLAC and play. The only place I trust for audio comparisons is hydrogen-audio, basically because you'd already have broken their TOS with your post, i.e. making statements like that with nothing to back it up.

It's simple to ABX with foobar and you might be surprised

I got my housemate to play random tracks from two identical albums that I'm familiar with, one 320kbps the other FLAC. Out of 30 random selections, i got 27 of them right.

But then that doesn't warrant that I've actually done it. You're merely either taking my word for it or your not. I don't see you posting outlined sections of whatever websites TOS so your effectively doing the same. Just to a different degree. You'd also have to give a quantifiable measure of simplicity before stating that something is simple. Again, with no underlying evidence the level of hypocrisy in your post stains its relevance and factual merit.

Or should i just take your word for it because you used some abbreviations, system specifications and mentioned an audio related website as opposed to me only giving a simple and accurate summary of my own findings?

probedb · 25 Feb 2009 at 12:59

krisboats said:
I got my housemate to play random tracks from two identical albums that I'm familiar with, one 320kbps the other FLAC. Out of 30 random selections, i got 27 of them right.

But then that doesn't warrant that I've actually done it. You're merely either taking my word for it or your not. I don't see you posting outlined sections of whatever websites TOS so your effectively doing the same. Just to a different degree. You'd also have to give a quantifiable measure of simplicity before stating that something is simple. Again, with no underlying evidence the level of hypocrisy in your post stains its relevance and factual merit.

Or should i just take your word for it because you used some abbreviations, system specifications and mentioned an audio related website as opposed to me only giving a simple and accurate summary of my own findings?

So I asked you to do some ABX testing and you say that my post is entirely without merit. Sigh....

cram · 25 Feb 2009 at 13:18

I've done ABX testing and I can tell the difference. Admittedly difference isn't huge but it is definitely there.

a1ex2001 · 25 Feb 2009 at 16:15

krisboats said:
I got my housemate to play random tracks from two identical albums that I'm familiar with, one 320kbps the other FLAC. Out of 30 random selections, i got 27 of them right.

Thats not ABX testing though is it? Not saying you can't hear the difference while the majority of people can't some people can.

krisboats · 25 Feb 2009 at 16:58

A subject is presented with two known samples (sample A, the reference, and sample B, an alternative). Of these two samples, one is selected as the unknown sample (sample X), which the subject identifies as being either A or B.

Either i'm missing something vital or it completely is the same. Maybe i worded it wrong. Two identical albums, one flac one 320kbps. My housemate picked one of the two versions of a particular song and played it. I told him which i thought it was and he went on to the next song. The same thing happened until we were 30 songs in and getting bored.

I got 27 of them right.

probedb said:
So I asked you to do some ABX testing and you say that my post is entirely without merit. Sigh....

No, i'm making a point about perceived validity. Which you clearly missed.