What is better DTS Core @ 1509 Kbps or AAC @ 700-1000 Kbps from DTS-HD MA

[vash1]

Hello,

What is better lossy DTS Core @ 1509 Kbps or lossy AAC @ 700-1000 Kbps converted from lossless DTS-HD MA?

Thanks!

[pandy]

AAC may deliver higher (closer to original) quality and functionality (due supported number of channels and higher sampling rates) - DTS is limited to 5.1 48k audio.

[KarMa]

DTS was designed around low compression efficiency, which was overcome by simply having a lot more bandwidth used with it. AAC-LC (Apple or Nero) on the other hand has some of the best efficiency. 448k AAC-LC should be more than enough for 5.1 Surround.

[vash1]

Thanks, pandy and KarMa for the valuable info!

Especially it was very useful to know that DTS was designed around low compression efficiency

Overall, AAC spectrogram @ 900 Kbps converted from lossless DTS-HD MA, looks much sweeter to me than DTS Core @ 1509 Kbps.

I just wasn't quite sure if converting to AAC will not add some additional artifacts and sounds worse than plain DTS Core.

So I'll stick with AAC.

[pandy]

Thanks, pandy and KarMa for the valuable info!

Especially it was very useful to know that DTS was designed around low compression efficiency

Overall, AAC spectrogram @ 900 Kbps converted from lossless DTS-HD MA, looks much sweeter to me than DTS Core @ 1509 Kbps.

I just wasn't quite sure if converting to AAC will not add some additional artifacts and sounds worse than plain DTS Core.

So I'll stick with AAC.

For me more important benefit from AAC use is possibility to keep more than 5.1 configuration and also sampling rate can be higher - with such high bitrate AAC should be "acoustically transparent".

[vash1]

For me more important benefit from AAC use is possibility to keep more than 5.1 configuration

Yeah, keeping 7.1 channels is a huge advantage of AAC for me as well. I'm actively using this where possible.