Overrated 5.1 surround sound

[GreenJelly]

In all of our 5.1 suround sound recordings, we are using MP3 at around 400megabits per second (on 6 channels). DTS pulls this up around 50 more while AC3 is about 50 lower.

Currently all standards use the MP3 standard, and I beleive the MPEG4 standard is the same (which means BlueRay and HDTV) though they may up the bitrate. Current DVD's max out around 9000mbps (video + Audio).

Their simply isnt perfect recordings for 5.1 surround sound to exist and this brings to question very high end 5.1 setups. CD's are still the best sounding music available. Analog recordings are simply too old... And true loss based compression is said to be unnoticed around 300kbps.

I wish this wasnt true, but vinal and Tape are out of the life cycle, and honestly very few people have the speakers or the ears (less then 1% of the population: so I heard) to tell the difference between analog and digital.

I am at a loss for words... Yet at my price ranges, it really doesnt matter much... and I cant tell the difference between MP3's and CD's... though I hear you can train yourself to recognize the differences.

Mike

 

[emorphien]

Nothing wrong with analog recordings. I listen to vinyl fairly regularly, although not quite as much as CD, on my stereo. The life cycle of vinyl is far from over, if anything it seems to be picking up as of late.

As far as 5.1 audio, if you want to hear what it can really do find a good 5.1 system and some good DVD-A and SACD material. While it's somewhat of a novelty and something I don't listen to often, it can be a really fun experience. Certainly worth playing with IMO.

 

[Pianoman84d]

Sorry Mike,

I'm missing your point. Can you spell it out for the tired among us?

 

[emorphien]

I think he has a lot of axes to grind.

 

[GreenJelly]

One day, when the music industry decides that it will start selling high quality surround sound MP3's, we will never see this change.

On top of it, most MP3 players dont support Bitrates over 200

I am going to have to double encode my personal library... One copy for my portable devices (lower bitrates), and one for my HTPC system (higher bitrates).

Prologic can do wonders to stereo, and can make some music (TRANCE) shine like you cant beleive...

 

[emorphien]

On top of it, most MP3 players dont support Bitrates over 200

I had no idea. Both of mine go up to 320.

 

[GreenJelly]

I think he has a lot of axes to grind.

PArtially true, yet... we got to realize that at some point (price wise) it becomes unwise to buy surround sound speakers that are of high quality.

Maybe this is why Thiel is jumping their prices on the 3.7's up so far, with a huge gap between the 2.X series. They figure that the 2.X series and below will be the best you need for the home theater enthusiast... and that the 3.7's are for the music lover...

 

[GreenJelly]

I had no idea. Both of mine go up to 320.

Yikes... Well it figures, mine is a cheap *** CD player... but I love it...

I still cant tell and Im using Gredos... go figure.

Anyways... Last I knew MP3's dont support 320... only Windows Media Files, and probably OGG and the others...

Mike

BTW good night... Im going to smoke a cig, and hit the bed... COLD OUTSIDE TOO!

 

[Pianoman84d]

Nighty night. Totally sucks if MP3 players don't support higher bitrate MP3s. I do know that iPods support the Apple Lossless format and any bitrate MP3 or AAC etc file you want (but they give you crappy headphones... )

 

[emorphien]

Anyways... Last I knew MP3's dont support 320... o

That would be news to me. I've been ripping them like that (or at VBR 192/320) for quite a while.

 

[robot]

In all of our 5.1 suround sound recordings, we are using MP3 at around 400megabits per second (on 6 channels). DTS pulls this up around 50 more while AC3 is about 50 lower.

So nobody gets confused... that's supposed to be kilobits per second.

 

[emorphien]

So nobody gets confused... that's supposed to be kilobits per second.

Yep.

Speaking of which, it's a lot of fun watching the bitrate on my Pioneer Elite when I'm listening to a DVD-A disc (or SACD) because just for audio it jumps around quite a bit. I was listening to Porcupine Tree and it was hopping around from 5 to almost 8 Mbits/s

 

[MACCA350]

In all of our 5.1 suround sound recordings, we are using MP3 at around 400megabits per second (on 6 channels). DTS pulls this up around 50 more while AC3 is about 50 lower.

You're comparing apple's and oranges. You can't draw the conclusion that one is better or worse based on bitrate alone. Want some more info see here

BTW, for DVD DD(AC3) runs up to 448kbps (20Hz to 20kHz) and DTS is mostly 754kbps (20Hz-19kHz) and sometimes 1509kbps (20Hz-24kHz).


cheers

 

[GreenJelly]

oops sorry, yes its KBPS

 

[Tex-amp]

While, I don't get into surround at all for music. I think the craptacular sound quality of MP3 is the real culprit and not surround sound.

 

[Bee-Man]

No argument there at all...

Source material sets the parameters...and I fully agree that the industry has figured out that the ~ 6% of people who invest in good sound equipment are less important than the 94% who basically run DVD's through there TV sets and basic HT set ups....

I just don't get it - mass producing (CD's and DVD's) digitally encoded material does not get more expensive or significantly take more time to manufacture if you put more detail on it - and in fact, there is already significant difference difference in DVD and CD sound quality already....have a listen to Dire Straits and then listen to Phil Collins and Sting.....the latter two really have CD's and DVD's that just sound so much better....Robbie Williams sound quality is crap too!

I think the value of HT plateau's out at ~ US$1.5K because of the limitations of the source......

I have been peeved for quite some time now.....

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I do know that iPods support the Apple Lossless format and any bitrate MP3 or AAC etc file you want (but they give you crappy headphones... )

Buy better headphones?

 

[jaxvon]

No argument there at all...

Source material sets the parameters...and I fully agree that the industry has figured out that the ~ 6% of people who invest in good sound equipment are less important than the 94% who basically run DVD's through there TV sets and basic HT set ups....

I just don't get it - mass producing (CD's and DVD's) digitally encoded material does not get more expensive or significantly take more time to manufacture if you put more detail on it - and in fact, there is already significant difference difference in DVD and CD sound quality already....have a listen to Dire Straits and then listen to Phil Collins and Sting.....the latter two really have CD's and DVD's that just sound so much better....Robbie Williams sound quality is crap too!

I think the value of HT plateau's out at ~ US$1.5K because of the limitations of the source......

I have been peeved for quite some time now.....

I think you're underestimating the quality of the source. Take a level matched blind test and see if you can tell the difference between a high-quality compressed stream and an uncompressed stream. I doubt you will.

 

[Pianoman84d]

Buy better headphones?

Exactly!! Point was, that if your headphones suck, then it doesn't matter whether you are listening to lossless or low quality mp3 on the iPod or other portable unit.

 

[GreenJelly]

The truth is, that most people cant tell the difference bettween compressed audio and the non-compressed audio. But if you know what to look for you can pick up on it. The compression removes frequencies that are alike. Parts of Cymbols and parts of a Guttar that are simular. If you look and study the compressions, you can find the week points and you can tell the difference. It takes training of the ears, but its their.

Higher frequencies of compression become less likely to hear these gaps. With 5.1 surround sound you got 5 different channels, all with seperate compression issues. When you add it all together, there are possibilities that one channel covers the areas of the rest of the areas.

Compression of audio isnt a bad thing. It is a lossly compression and you will get some problems. The higher bitrates (above 300kbps) are almost like the original (or so they say). Im not sure what the bitrates are on a HD or Blueray DVD, but I suspect they didnt change things much from DTS. Their is just no need to meet the needs of a very few people with high enough quality of equipment and the natural ability to hear it, to justify the change. So I dont expect things to get better.

Then again, does anyone need $150,000 speakers? Can you tell the difference between $150,000 speakers and $15,000 speakers? I cant tell you, cause Ive never listened to $100,000+ speakers. Ive listened to $15,000 speakers, and I can tell you that there is a difference between them and my $1200 speakers. The difference becomes minute, and though I would love to own a pair of these speakers, I cant say that the law of diminishing returns is in the favor of the millionars in this world.