Difference in AC3-128kbps and AC3-192kbps

[Bullet2k4]

can you really hear the difference in sound quality?how which one sound better than the other?

[mats.hogberg]

Not me, but I'm sure some can.

/Mats

[guns1inger]

It depends on the source and the playback equipment. If you have low quality source, such as MP3 compressed audio, then no, you probably wont. This is because the audio has already been damaged.

If you have good quality source, then even if you only have TV speakers now, you should use 192 or even 256 kbps for stereo AC3 because one day you may well have better equipment, and you will be able to hear the difference. Once you throw the information away, you can't get it back.

[Bullet2k4]

It depends on the source and the playback equipment. If you have low quality source, such as MP3 compressed audio, then no, you probably wont. This is because the audio has already been damaged.

If you have good quality source, then even if you only have TV speakers now, you should use 192 or even 256 kbps for stereo AC3 because one day you may well have better equipment, and you will be able to hear the difference. Once you throw the information away, you can't get it back.

hmmm well i tried hearing the difference on my computer and i could definitely tell a difference. 128kbps sounds much lower.192kbps sounds much louder and clearer

[guns1inger]

What quality was your source ?

And at least you tried it for yourself, instead of just taking everyone's word for an answer.

Personally, I would never go lower than 192 kbps for AC3 anyway, and usually use 256 kbps for 2.0 and 320 - 448 kbps for 5.1

[yoda313]

Typically for commercial movies a vast majority of movies tend to be about 348 kbps (I don't remember the exact number but its between 256 and 448 on the audio scale). That tends to be the sweet spot apparently for hollywood. Now action movies usually do 448.

My dvd recorder (liteon) is fixed at 256 and sounds just fine. My hdtv capture card recording software is fixed to 256 as well.

Personally I don't think you'll save much space by going with 128 versus 192. You'll probably be better off using 192 to keep whatever quality is on the original source.

[edDV]

The production people (Hollywood, etc.) are targeting home equipment three-five years out. Most home 5.1 equipment now is K-Mart level. Also, average people are still training their ears.

There will always be a minority with the audiophile equipment and those sensitive people that complain loudly about overcompression. The typical customer should appreciate these critics. They are protecting your future home theater hardware investment.

[ntscuser]

can you really hear the difference in sound quality?how which one sound better than the other?

For straight stereo, no but Dolby Laboratories say anything less than 192kbs is inadequate for surround sound and personal testing tends to bear that out.

(kim)

[jimmalenko]

Typically for commercial movies a vast majority of movies tend to be about 348 kbps (I don't remember the exact number but its between 256 and 448 on the audio scale). That tends to be the sweet spot apparently for hollywood. Now action movies usually do 448.

I think you'll find it's 384kbps, which is the max for MP2. For the record, I've found the most common formats to be AC3 2ch 192kbps or AC3 5.1ch 448kbps on the DVDs I;'ve purchased.

Personally I don't think you'll save much space by going with 128 versus 192. You'll probably be better off using 192 to keep whatever quality is on the original source.

I agree. 64kbps corresponds to a saving of around 56MB across a 120 minute video so you'd need to be really cramming to consider doing it solely for space purposes IMHO.