DTS Audio Bitrate Question - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 46Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-10-2016, 07:38 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
DTS Audio Bitrate Question

Hi,

What is the difference between DTS 1536 kb/s and DTS 768 kb/s? What is the advantages of one on the another? Are there any audible differences?

Can I listen to DTS 768 kb/s and believe that I am getting the best audio from the movies/musics? Or should I go for DTS 1536 kb/s?

Why I am asking is because I have a decent speaker system, and I am downloading movies and musics from torrents, some movies are in DTS 768 kb/s and some are in DTS 1536 kb/s, but the file size difference is huge between the two. Normally for DTS 768 kb/s movies the file size varies between 2~4 GB while for DTS 1536 kb/s is between 7~20 GB.

With many thanks.

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)

Last edited by showmak; 01-10-2016 at 07:43 AM.
showmak is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-10-2016, 08:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,010
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 190
The higher bitrate versions are "less lossy", meaning more of the original PCM is restored on decoding. 1536k is about as good as lossless dts-MA. But, why not try downloading a few movies in both to see if you can hear a difference that would justify the larger file sizes.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
krabapple, showmak and bzbx like this.
BIslander is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 08:28 AM
Member
 
Kadajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 20
It's little like mp3, more bitrate better sound quality. So if u want best audio go for 1536. Of corse it's still compressed. If u want flawless audio quality go for DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TruHD.
showmak and bzbx like this.
Kadajo is offline  
 
Old 01-10-2016, 11:46 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Thank you for your explanation. But in real world, is there any audible differences that the ears can differentiate?


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)
showmak is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,010
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 190
The 768k encodes are what you typically get on DVD, which are used because there's so little space on those discs. 1536k is the max lossy bitrate and generally sounds as good as lossless.

But, again, why not try it both ways and make your own decision?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
showmak and bzbx like this.
BIslander is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 12:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nott'm, UK
Posts: 2,541
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 467 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
The 768k encodes are what you typically get on DVD, which are used because there's so little space on those discs. 1536k is the max lossy bitrate and generally sounds as good as lossless.
Agreed...

I can confirm that the vast majority of my DVD's with DTS audio only offer half bit-rate. Very few offer the maximum permitted bit-rate

Thankfully Blu-rays with DTS-HD MA audio tend to offer full bit-rate DTS cores, which is pretty useful if you have old spec surround-sound amplifier...
showmak likes this.

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout and A/V Gear
SeeMoreDigital is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 12:39 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
DTS Audio Bitrate Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
The 768k encodes are what you typically get on DVD, which are used because there's so little space on those discs. 1536k is the max lossy bitrate and generally sounds as good as lossless.

But, again, why not try it both ways and make your own decision?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

This is very informative. I'm not sure whether I can find the same title in both bitrates, but what I'll do I'll re encode a 1536k title to 786k and will compare. Good suggestion.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)
showmak is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 01:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nott'm, UK
Posts: 2,541
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 467 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
This is very informative. I'm not sure whether I can find the same title in both bitrates, but what I'll do I'll re encode a 1536k title to 786k and will compare. Good suggestion.
Technically, generating a lossy encode from an already lossy source will create a reduction in audio quality, regardless of the bit-rate you use.

Out of interest which DTS audio encoding software are you using?
showmak likes this.

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout and A/V Gear
SeeMoreDigital is offline  
Old 01-10-2016, 01:32 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
DTS Audio Bitrate Question

@SeeMoreDigital

If this is the case, then I have to use the Arrow series Blu-ray Discs, they are in DTS-HD MA.

Any recommendation for a good software?

Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)

Last edited by showmak; 01-10-2016 at 01:45 PM.
showmak is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 08:12 AM
Newbie
 
ijsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1
I never liked the sound on DVDs. When I moved to BluRay HD, it sounded great. Finally some decent audio to match decent video. If you've gone to the effort of setting up a surround system with rear channels, the difference should be very audible. It's very obvious on the Transformers movies, for example.
showmak likes this.
ijsmith is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 08:44 AM
Newbie
 
c_port's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
@SeeMoreDigital


Any recommendation for a good software?
Ripbot264 (Windows only) abstracts the entire A\V conversion process. You can open the scripts that get created and inspect the plumbing, and use those to extract, compress, mux, etc.

Handbrake works on Mac\Win but doesn't really help you if you want some custom end result.

I've found that every improvement you can make in speakers and room treatment will yield the greatest audible result. Changing any other link in the chain will produce subtle, mostly inaudible, improvement.

On the flip side of this is the fact that psychological evidence convinces better than actual evidence. I've repeatedly told people in an AB comparison that they were hearing the large, furniture-finish towers when I actually was putting sound through a set of well-placed bookshelves. The towers overwhelmingly win, even when I repeat the demo and correctly identify the sources. So they pick the towers whether or not the sound is actually produced by the towers. When blindfolded, the bookshelves win more often than the towers.

If you want to find out if your ears (and psyche) can tell the difference, enlist someone's help and do some blind tests.

Bottom line for me: I use the highest quality audio source possible. If I know that it is TrueHD I enjoy it more than I would if I knew it was AC3.
showmak, Brent Reid and bzbx like this.
c_port is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 08:54 AM
Member
 
smallpox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The music downloads should be as high rez as available. An album of DTS HD is usually less than 2 GB. As memory has gone done in price, I have burned my surround sound music to what ever was on the DVD or blue ray. Unfortunately, VLC will not play DTS HD. My OPPO 103D will play full rez files from a HDD as long as they are in flac or an MKV container.

Of course, this all depends on how good your system is. You should be able to hear the difference on yours.
A good source an a bad system will sound bad, as will a bad source on a good system.

Movies are another story, whether or not voices will be better or booms louder is debateable. It all depends on how much memory you are willing to allocate.
showmak likes this.
smallpox is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 09:05 AM
Newbie
 
MBeeching's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
DTS 1536kb/s discs were quite scarce during the DVD era, the vast majority were restricted to concerts/music content.
I recall several Peter Gabriel discs being encoded in this 'high' bitrate (e.g. Play, Growing Up). They certainly sounded superior to the 448kb/s Dolby Digital tracks, especially through headphones.

I once attended a high-end demo centre and they asked us to bring a reference disc for a competition. I took my Asian import of House of Flying Daggers which included a DTS 1536kb/s audio track.
Suffice to say it blew everyone away and I left with a hamper full of bubbly
showmak likes this.
MBeeching is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 09:07 AM
Senior Member
 
sworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 87
I've always found that the quality of the mixing and mastering matters a lot more than bitrate. I rarely hear compression artifacting at any bitrate.
sworth is online now  
Old 01-11-2016, 09:32 AM
Newbie
 
vjsanaiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Not enough information, but higher bit rate would usually be better. That said 768 kbps is in the realm of CD quality audio (16 bit 44.1 kHz, ) and 1536 kbps is probably 24 bit encoding 48 KHz, which is about the floor of high resolution audio. In both cases we are probably talking about size uncompressed, i.e. not MP3. Audio compression cannot be discerned from bitrates.
showmak likes this.
vjsanaiz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 09:34 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
I really appreciate your inputs guys. Everyday I learn a new thing.


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)
showmak is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 10:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nott'm, UK
Posts: 2,541
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 467 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ijsmith View Post
I never liked the sound on DVDs. When I moved to BluRay HD, it sounded great. Finally some decent audio to match decent video. If you've gone to the effort of setting up a surround system with rear channels, the difference should be very audible. It's very obvious on the Transformers movies, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBeeching View Post
DTS 1536kb/s discs were quite scarce during the DVD era, the vast majority were restricted to concerts/music content.
I recall several Peter Gabriel discs being encoded in this 'high' bitrate (e.g. Play, Growing Up). They certainly sounded superior to the 448kb/s Dolby Digital tracks, especially through headphones.

I once attended a high-end demo centre and they asked us to bring a reference disc for a competition. I took my Asian import of House of Flying Daggers which included a DTS 1536kb/s audio track.
Suffice to say it blew everyone away and I left with a hamper full of bubbly
Yep, there's nothing inferior about lossy dts audio. When encoded and mixed properly it can sound brilliant.

Anybody who thinks otherwise should buy the 5.1 channel mix of Pink Floyd's Division Bell


Cheers
showmak and captainbrent like this.

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout and A/V Gear
SeeMoreDigital is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 10:06 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
showmak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 396
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 185 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeMoreDigital View Post
Yep, there's nothing inferior about lossy dts audio. When encoded and mixed properly it can sound brilliant.



Anybody who thinks otherwise should buy the 5.1 channel mix of Pink Floyd's Division Bell





Cheers

I have the Division Bell Concert


Sent from my iPhone6s+ using Tapatalk

__________________________________________________
Sony BRAVIA XBR55HX929, Yamaha Aventage RX-A3050, Front Mains: Jamo C109, Surrounds: Jamo C103, FH/RH: Jamo C93, Center: Jamo C10 CEN and Subwoofer: Jamo J112 SUB (5.1.4)
showmak is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 10:12 AM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 15
* I find higher bitrate has finer Hi resolution texture, and a broader center width soundstage.

Lower bitrates can mimick that finer higher freq acoustics, but they can never replace the soundstage that is narrowed due to compressing the signal. A broader soundstage will always be perceived as more content acoustic velocity than a narrow sound stage.
showmak likes this.

Last edited by theatredaz; 01-11-2016 at 10:15 AM.
theatredaz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 10:18 AM
Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
But in real world, is there any audible differences that the ears can differentiate?
Thats totally up to your ears. Someone else may be able to (or say they are able to) hear a different. Plenty of people can't hear the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 320kbps mp3s. Plenty of people can't hear the difference between 256kbps mp3 and FLAC.

If you can't hear the difference, then save the file size. If you can hear the difference, always choose the better version.

Media Room: Epson 5030 / Marantz 7010 / OPPO-103
Paradigm Mini Monitors v2 / Atoms (rears) / CC-370
House Audio: Onkyo NR-709 & Monoprice in-wall speakers
Server: WHS2011, i5 2500k CPU
HTPC:Win8 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
ckronengold is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 10:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
SeeMoreDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nott'm, UK
Posts: 2,541
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 467 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
I have the Division Bell Concert
Me too!

The 5.1 channel dts studio album is really something else though
showmak likes this.

I SUPPORT 'FAIR USE'. MY MORALS PREVENT ME FROM HELPING ANYONE WHO OBTAINS COPYRIGHTED CONTENT ILLEGITIMATELY
I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout and A/V Gear
SeeMoreDigital is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 11:31 AM
Member
 
HislonV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Codecs and listening

OK, don't blast me for stating this, but I have been around codecs for a very long time.
Reality check. Lossy codecs have improved greatly since MPEG-1. Even with a lossy codec you can get extremely good reproduction at a high enough data rate AND you can always find something that will get destroyed with a lossy codec. I don't care if it is Dolby, DTS or MPEG, there is always something that will break the lossy codec.
By definition, a lossless codec will return an exact match to the original file when decoded. Also by definition a lossy codec will not return an identical match, but the idea is to make the results sound as if they are exact by eliminating the "inaudible parts" of the signal. How a codec does that is what sets them apart.
If I don't tell you what a sound source is, I am willing to bet that most of you who claim to be "golden ears" won't pick up on the fact that it is lossy compression as long as I choose the right material and use a high enough data rate. And just because you use more data does NOT mean that it will sound better than other codecs at that data rate. Some actually perform quite well at much lower data rates and some perform better at those lower data rates. It also depends on how many channels you have. Some of the new codecs with dynamic objects and more channels than 5.1 actually outperform the current AC-3 5.1 at 384 kbps. Yes, I said it. 7.1 +4 + 3 static Objects and 2 dynamic objects can sound better at 384 kbps.
I'm not saying that the DTS stuff doesn't sound great, but don't fixate on a data rate. A handful of you may be able to hear a definite difference, but the vast majority can't and they are the ones paying the bills so the economics dictate using enough data to make the masses happy, not the extremely small elite group of listeners who unfortunately don't contribute much to their bottom line.

Jim Hilson
HislonV is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 11:38 AM
Member
 
theatredaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 15
* I've been using mastering software that emulates lossy codecs.

For a quick comparison:

320kps has a certain pressure on your ear drums ~ You feel it near the center of your ears pressure canals, they also pick up a broader spectrum of High freq's that this bitrate can emulate. (Although not as pronounced as AAC 320kps)

128kps reduces this pressure and feel on the ear drums, it sounds more AM with reduced / weaker tonal pressure on the ears.

1536kps 16 bit (CD) Has considerable more wider soundstage, but mostly the pressures nodes in your ear canal become more filled with a broader pressure range, this is due to the 16bit format, thus translating higher freq's with better distinction due to the wider pressure it places on the ear canal.

AAC 320kps seems to have the most High freq'y response in comparison to the mp3 format, compared to mp3 320kps AAC is able to better emulate High Freq Resolution, or more "Hairy high freq's compared to mp3 that has a flatter type of response between 4-18khz as an example AAC brightens that freq band possibly due to more efficient compression in that band of freq's compared to mp3 format.

24bit 4608kps has an even more pronounced pressure on the ears with a broader range the stimulates more area of the ear canal, emulating more direct contact with your ear drum, stimulating more pressure points that expand beyond your ear into the cranial part of your skull, or what would be termed headroom.

* Basically as bit rate increases there is more resolution but more importantly there are more nodes stimulating the ear canal and ear drum placing more pressure on it that expands into a wider cranial area of your head, up to and including your forehead. The difference are subtle at lower volumes, but much more discernable at higher volumes with equipment that is accurate.
showmak likes this.

Last edited by theatredaz; 01-11-2016 at 11:42 AM.
theatredaz is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 11:59 AM
Member
 
mighty5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Higher bit rate is superior. However, depending on how it's mixed/mastered it may not sound much better if at all. Also if your speakers and room acoustics aren't tuned you won't get much of an audible difference. The best way to compare is with a set of quality head phones then decide if its worth the higher bit rate. Just a side note, Room acoustics make a huge difference when listening to audio. When you have all your sound muddied up or reflecting off of everything your depriving yourself of good clean sound. HD codecs really shine when your system AND room is tuned.


Cheers!
showmak and synccoil like this.
mighty5 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
soapbox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Posts: 245
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
Thank you for your explanation. But in real world, is there any audible differences that the ears can differentiate?
Yes, there are huge differences, but you will only hear them on a decent audio setup.
On my SVS Ultra 5.2 setup (and on Sennheiser HD800 at night) differences between bitrates can be very staggering, especially on good recordings. Always make sure you have the highest available audio quality, that includes 24-bit bit depth over 16-bit.
showmak likes this.
soapbox is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:09 PM
Member
 
goslin23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 25
These are legal Torrents of music and movies I'm assuming?

Being a content creator myself, I'd hope you are paying for legit copies of your movies and music.

-=gos=-
Dark Matter likes this.
goslin23 is online now  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:36 PM
Member
 
RonCK722's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lacey, WA
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
Hi,

What is the difference between DTS 1536 kb/s and DTS 768 kb/s? What is the advantages of one on the another? Are there any audible differences?

Can I listen to DTS 768 kb/s and believe that I am getting the best audio from the movies/musics? Or should I go for DTS 1536 kb/s?

Why I am asking is because I have a decent speaker system, and I am downloading movies and musics from torrents, some movies are in DTS 768 kb/s and some are in DTS 1536 kb/s, but the file size difference is huge between the two. Normally for DTS 768 kb/s movies the file size varies between 2~4 GB while for DTS 1536 kb/s is between 7~20 GB.

With many thanks.
Dear shomak,

As a Die Hard Analog designer who listens to most classical CDs with a Studio Monitor headset, I swore I'd never listen to mp3s, but I just bought a 2016 SUV with high end factory audio (an oxymoron) and guess what - no CD! Stymied with the choice of Analog vs. Bluetooth vs. mp3 audio. I did some research.

Even some die-hard audiophiles admitted the highest data-rate, 320 ksps mp3s, recorded and stored at 10/1 compression are virtually indistinguishable from CDs (upscaling 160 ksps mp3s doesn't count).

How could that be? On the other hand, we have to settle for significantly compressed (typically 10/1) cable and satellite TV and comparably-compressed jpeg photos if we don't want to consume the world's supply of storage or disk space.

I also did the calculation that shows storage capability is still doubling every nominal 15 months.

Digitizing film - if the jpeg compression artifacts, the pixel size and film globules are roughly comparable at 4/1 magnification, making any one twice as good has only a minor effect on the Root Sum Square, but making any one twice as bad is significantly noticeable.

My conclusion - 10/1 compression, properly done, is virtually indistinguishable to all but the most rabid audiovideophile. There will always be horses vs automobiles, tubes versus Solid State, platters vs CDs, film vs digital cameras, ported versus sealed baffles, feedback versus open-loop, Analog vs. Digital........................

Life is a series of trade-offs. Take the splendid advice already given you by several others - try 1536 vs 768 DTS for yourself and make the quality vs. space tradeoff. If confused, always err on the side of quality. You can always reduce file sizes later. Sampling Theory says it doesn't work the other way around.

Always remember "RSS & 10/1, RSS & 10/1, RSS......."

Those high data rate mp3s sound pretty damn good and the SUV displays Tchaikovsky's picture, along with the recording's title in both English and Cyrillic. Can't beat that.

Good Hunting,

Ron
showmak likes this.
RonCK722 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:36 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
What is the difference between DTS 1536 kb/s and DTS 768 kb/s ? What is the advantages of one on the another? Are there any audible differences?
.
Kind of like
DTS 768 kb/s is Like MP3 128
DTS 1536 kb/s is Like MP3 320
DTS HD is like FLAC


As simply the higher the compression the more is lost
add to the 2 types loss less such as flac and lossy mp3
then the general advancement of the compression codec for example when CD wav was the best compression codec at the time but not as good as vinyl and reel to reel blew away both when DVD format was established the SACD and the now dead DVD-Audio format were created and while some disk you can not tell much difference however some disks like dark side of the moon and tubular bells will blow you away in SACD.
Audio took a down turn on the DVD once again as space with a movie on was tight so heavy compression lossly codec was necessary on some disks so blue ray was created which allowed higher video quality along with DTS-HD
showmak likes this.
Magnus Thunderson is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:59 PM
Member
 
ki11abee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Los Angeles CA
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If you have a blu player, you can make this test now. Pop in a blu Ray that has dts-ma and the regular non HD audio(most movies do). First play a scene that has lots of sound and lfe effects and play it normal non hd sound(i.e. Dolby digital dts). Play close attention to audio and play same scene over n over. Then play the same scene but with DTS-MA enabled. You will hear the difference instantly. On the PS3 if you hit info, it shows you the bitrate count as its playing!! There truly is a huge sound difference between Normal and HD!!
showmak likes this.

Samsung UN65H7150AFXZA UH02 Panel
Pioneer VSX 1120
Definitive Technology ProCinema 800 6.1(1000 Center)
PS3 BR Player
DirecTV HR44
Harmony One

Last edited by ki11abee; 01-11-2016 at 01:36 PM.
ki11abee is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
MichaelLAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 29
No such thing as a FREE lunch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Showmak View Post
Why I am asking is because I have a decent speaker system, and I am downloading movies and musics from torrents...
Here is a radical approach:

Why not purchase the commercial BR or DTS disk (and rip it yourself, if that is even necessary)!?

Since you are someone who can obviously afford to purchase the content and want to achieve maximum quality, why not compensate all of those whose efforts resulted in such a high quality product for you to enjoy?
Dark Matter, ChromeJob and soapbox like this.
MichaelLAX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off