It's not cryptic like that, no."That DTS 2496 is in fact the "ringer". Not bait and switch though, just a really really bad idea! Decoded fully, it's slightly but genuinely transparent lossy 24/96. Decoded on gear that only decodes the "core" dts signal, it's heavily lossy. That it also decodes to 48k (in core lossy mode) in that scenario is the telltale but the lossy is magnitudes worse than merely a sample rate conversion to 48k. "
This is some fantastic writing, that I am not sure I get it at all. The "ringer" flavor is the brand name plain DTS24/96 that is not 24/96kHz like my LPCM ELP or Grateful Dead DVD-As are? And the top of the line DTS "flavor brand" to look for is the "MA" flavor, like chili cheese flavor Fritos, not plain? DTS MA is the deluxe real lossless 24/96kHz I take it?
DTS 2496 is encoded from an LPCM 24/96 master.
If you use a codec that decodes it as fully as possible (per the design), it's a very transparent barely lossy copy of the original 24/96 LPCM. The decoded file is 96k. To the point that it almost nulls with the original even.
If you use a 'legacy' codec (as found in many hardware and even software DVD players) only part of the DTS 2496 data stream is decoded. The decoded file here is 48k.
I say "ringer" because there are so many hardware players in the wild that only have the 'legacy' decoder.
Someone made the decision that it was preferred to have older hardware at least output some sound as opposed to rejecting the disc. Opponents of this decision argue that it would be better to reject the disc (forcing someone to upgrade if they wanted to play it) than to play a degraded version. I call it a ringer because there seem to be a lot of hardware and even software media players that only use the legacy decoder.
DTS is a brand sure. Dolby is another one. (They had the significantly poorer lossy format but they now also offer a lossless version. I don't think they have an "in-between" "ringer" format equivalent to DTS 2496). These aren't meaningless marketing buzzwords. They're companies that make these formats.
Another argument for moving into the 21st century and using a computer and software media players IMHO. When stuff like this comes along, it's just a software hunt. No replacing expensive hardware.
I posted the test results using the Tull files I mentioned a few years ago actually. Not sure if I saved them. When you can take two files and A/B them and hear no difference, and then subtract one from the other (null test) and get nearly zero, that's pretty matter of fact. Likewise when you subtract the core-only dts 2496 decode from a full dts 2496 decode and both hear obvious difference between them and they don't even come close to nulling, that's pretty matter of fact too. (And yes it should go without saying that you need to verify they are at precisely the same volume. Before someone wants to suggest this is an amateur hour volume mismatch between them.)
Someone can feel free to move this tech corner digression to another thread if this is too much.