The matrixed mono surround is far more limited but if the film was originally mixed in that, a 5.1 remix really doesn't do very much unless it came from a different source such as a 70mm 6track mix. The ac3 is discrete in all channels so there is no sound leakage between them as in PCM matrix ProLogic. On LD typically the PCM and ac3 mixes are identical in their source, and it is only the presentation that is different. LD presents everything warts and all unlike DVD and BD which can quite frequently re-compress and remix channels for nearfield home listening and the like. With ac3 vs PCM the key difference is both the mix and the original audio format.
Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work full#
If you're going to watch a lot of multichannel movies, practically anything post 1992-1994, then a full surround system is a must at least to overcome dynamic range compression. Looking for Hi-Vision Discs (MUSE or HDVS). I don't think I have anything by way of stuff on BD and also on LD with either DD or DTS to compare in this way. Going back to your original question there is a fair bit of material on-line to suggest you'll get an equally good result compared to BD if not better (LD tends to use original theatre sound mixes rather than 'optimised' for home), and as substance points out in the early days perhaps 5.1 tracks were a bit overblown to emphasise the benefits. 1 channel does make a difference as opposed to just deriving it. Music LD's without multi-channel encoding (PCM) still sound better played back on my system (6.1 speaker set-up) as '2.1' rather than turning on pro-logic, neo etc but if the disc has a 5.1 track then there's no doubt it sounds better that way rather than hearing it as '2.1'.īeing able to properly decode that discrete. This may be true if you are maintaining a '2.0' or perhaps '2.1' system in terms of speaker set-up, but if you intend using a 5.1 speaker set-up for playback of 5.1 audio tracks, then all other things being equal I think you'll definitely get a better result that way. If you intend to keep a stereo system, you're really not missing out. Personally, I have a "2.1" setup so AC-3 vs PCM makes little difference to me unless the mixing is substantially different. To show off the discrete nature and dedicated bass speaker, most mixes had cooked up surround effects and heavy bass.Īs signo mentioned, check out the list, there is about 600-700 titles with AC-3, about a 100 of them are very good mixes.
Also keep in mind, in the early days of AC-3 and DTS, most mixes were very enthusiastic. With the lfe track, AC-3 can mimic the dynamic range of 20bit PCM. Some AC-3 soundtracks are mastered in a way to hide flaws of this lossy codec, those are not too bad.Īs for the lfe, this was added to compensate the lack of dynamic range in the lossy AC-3 codec. If you are one of those who says they can't hear a difference between mp3 and CD, then AC-3 will sound just as good as PCM. Listen to a 128kbps mp3 or aac file, the fidelity of AC-3 is exactly that much if not less. If you divide that by 3, its 128kbps per every 2ch. AC-3 in LD is 384kbps combined for all 6 channels.
0 kommentar(er)
