AAC vs AC3 vs DTS: Which one is more wide supported?

[cyttorak]

Hello

Sometimes I have a mkv that play fine in my TV, and later I visit a friend whit my mkv in a pendrive and it isn't sound in his TV :_

That is very annoying, so what I most want of a mkv file (more than quality) is that it can be play anywhere.

Now, I am going to rip a Blue-Ray so I want to choose the codec with more chances to work in any device.

Which audio format is more wide supported?

Thanks

[johns0]

Aac.

[Skiller]

If it's 6 channels (5.1) audio, AC3 is probably the best supported; for stereo it's AAC.

I don't recommend AAC for 6 channels. Probably plays fine via the TV's integrated stereo speakers but for playback in a home cinema system AAC has definitely more error potential compared to AC3.

[johns0]

The op is talking about tv media players and they all play aac,most won't older ones won't play dts or dolby .

[Skiller]

I am aware of that.

It just means that for best playback compatibility use stereo only (and therefore AAC).

[pandy]

AC-3 is widely supported codec and common denominator for decent quality, multichannel audio - it is even accepted as a standard broadcast codec in US and in EU (despite being payed one). AAC market penetration is lower. DTS has no significant advantage over AC-3 and probably market penetration is similar to AAC.

[stonesfan187]

I did all of my files with Dolby Digital AC3. If you're planning on playing these on devices that support AAC instead of AC3, why not mux in an extra track that is AAC? DTS seems like it is only supported on home theater receivers these days (even my brand new Samsung TV won't pass DTS (converts it to LPCM)), so I just convert the lossless tracks to AC3 and forget about DTS. DTS takes more space anyway. AC3 seemed like a better choice because of compatibility.