dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to brianiscool

Re: .264 files

Technically yes, though you are severely downgrading the audio quality, normally from HD audio to DTS or AC3 and regardless of what people may say, it's no longer blu-ray quality. It's often not even HDTV quality.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

There is no such thing as "blu-ray quality audio", nor is "HD audio" a codec. Blu-Ray supports a variety of codecs, including AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital). It's part of the spec, so AC3 is by definition "blu-ray quality".

What I think you probably mean is that the quality is not as high as the lossless codecs. Bluray supports three of those. LPCM, which is uncompressed, and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD for compressed. Either of those three will provide identical quality, since they're all lossless.

To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves. You'll sometimes find the audio transcoded to FLAC, another lossless codec which is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.

The most typical scenario you find is the rip will simply include the regular DTS or DD+ stream. I'm not sure that anybody can actually tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD in practice. You'll get a much bigger difference in audio quality from the quality of your AV decoder's DACs than you will from the DTS/DTS-HD difference.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.

I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.

And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.

To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.

My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.

My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.



AnonFTW

@reliablehosting.com
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves.

All my rips have their audio transcoded to 640Kbps 5.1 AC3 in an H.264 MP4 container. Even though DTS-MA and TrueHD aren't supported in an MP4 container, I cannot tell a difference anyway.

Of course, I don't have a high-end surround sound system either, due to neighbors.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to MovieLover76

9GB rips from a place like HDBits would probably still use DTS; assuming a 2 hour movie, you've got a total bitrate of 10.2 Mbps, so going from 640 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps on the audio isn't going to impact the video that much.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to MovieLover76

said by MovieLover76:

You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.

I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.

And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.

To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.

My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.

My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.

DTS being better than AC3 or the opposite was beat to death back in the 90's. AC3 is a more efficient codec than DTS since the DTS bitrate was usually much higher to achieve the same quality as AC3 at a lower bitrate.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to Guspaz

Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.

Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.



aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

said by ChuckcZar :

Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.

Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.

For the vast majority of the population, they will not be able to tell the difference in a double blind test.