Sacd?

[Pyrrho]

The more i listen to SACD and DTS discs,the worst redbook cd's sound.

What you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. DTS uses lossy compression, unlike CD, so it really is an inferior format. Saying that DTS is better than CD is a bit like saying MP3s are better than CDs.

 

[j_garcia]

DTS can be 24 bit and a much higher sample rate (not all are), so even being "lossy" there can still be more information in a DTS track than a CD track. What really matters is how well it was recorded and mastered. MP3 is a different story, but at about 256K, most people can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD.

 

[WmAx]

DTS can be 24 bit and a much higher sample rate (not all are), so even being "lossy" there can still be more information in a DTS track than a CD track.

But the key here is not more audibly relevant information.

MP3 is a different story, but at about 256K, most people can't tell the difference between MP3 and CD.

The general person will have difficulty discerning even 128kbps MP3 from the CD on most samples, according to large scale ABX tests carried out on hydrogenaudio.org, if one uses a highly advanced MP3 encoder such as the latest version of Lame using the recommended settings by the Lame developers.

-Chris

 

[j_garcia]

I use 192k and I would have to listen very closely on a decent system to hear the difference if at all. Using WMP, I can definitely hear the difference on my home system with 128.

But the key here is not more audibly relevant information.

True, but what I am saying is that calling DTS a "lossy" format is a kind of blanket statement that is not 100% correct. Lossy compared to what?

 

[thundergust]

256k for regular mp3's are fine, but for music with a lot of DEEP bass, you can actually still hear a tiny bit of distortion.
btw, i use vbr 256kbps (192k - 320k) because my mp3 player is only 256MB.

 

[WmAx]

256k for regular mp3's are fine, but for music with a lot of DEEP bass, you can actually still hear a tiny bit of distortion.
btw, i use vbr 256kbps (192k - 320k) because my mp3 player is only 256MB.

How deep? Amplitude? What kind of distortion? Please provide me with an uncompressed sample clip and the compressed version demonstrating the effect, and specify the encoder used. I will analyze this sample for distortion(s) as well as test a separate encoding. I may provide you with a test signal to encode that can be sent back to me for analysis. I can provide you with a server space to upload the files to if necessary.

-Chris

 

[shokhead]

What you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. DTS uses lossy compression, unlike CD, so it really is an inferior format. Saying that DTS is better than CD is a bit like saying MP3s are better than CDs.

What i'm enjoying is a DTS Disc that sounds better then cd Disc. Lossy,compression,none of that means jack. It looks real nice on paper.

 

[Pyrrho]

I use 192k and I would have to listen very closely on a decent system to hear the difference if at all. Using WMP, I can definitely hear the difference on my home system with 128.



True, but what I am saying is that calling DTS a "lossy" format is a kind of blanket statement that is not 100% correct. Lossy compared to what?

"Lossy" is a term with a precise meaning, not a comparative term. It means that the format is such that data is thrown away. With data compression, sometimes it is such that no data is lost, and other times, during the compression process, data is purposely thrown away, often based upon the idea that you are not going to notice that it is missing. For your computer programs, you can use software that compresses the data, but this never uses lossy compression, as it would make the programs useless. But with audio (and video), lossy compression can be used, which may or may not go unnoticed. CDs are not a lossy format, nor are SACDs (nor are they compressed). Dolby Digital and DTS are both lossy formats, as are MP3s.

So saying that DTS is a lossy format is absolutely 100% correct, as it is a format in which data is thrown away. If you doubt this, go to their web site and read about it.

 

[Pyrrho]

What i'm enjoying is a DTS Disc that sounds better then cd Disc. Lossy,compression,none of that means jack. It looks real nice on paper.

As I said, what you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. It is a very real difference.

 

[shokhead]

As I said, what you are probably enjoying is the surround sound, which can make a considerable difference in how things sound. It is a very real difference.

Well yes,that makes it even better but i just dont listen to the rears.

 

[12outof13]

I agree with you, but I also blame it on the recording industry and manufacturers for not promoting the format. Most people have never even heard of SACD and don't have clue what it is. You can hardly find them in any retail stores and music selection is very limited. Also, they normally cost even more than DVD's and they priced themselves out of the market at normally $25 each. It seems to me they never believed in this format to begin with and weren't willing to make a serious commitment to it. It really pisses me off, but hopefully they will do a better job with Blueray discs. I think we have to face the fact that there aren't enough audiophiles out there for the recording studios and manufacturers to worry about. The big guys simply are not interested in sound quality and it will likely only get worse as more of the smaller record labels get bought out or go out of business. It is rather ironic that the most popular artists record the worst sound quality CDs.

 

[shokhead]

As long as there are 2 different formats it wont work good enough to make them money to the limited buyers like us. If it would have been only SACD or DVD-A i think it would be pretty healthy