The great lossless vs. dts 24/96 shootout!

[tghewett]

The thing that’s always bothered me about DTS 96/24 encoding for DVD (Not DTS-HDMA 96/24) is that it’s limited to 1440kbps (or whatever the DVD PCM rate is). The original DTS was 48/24, then they added 96/24 as an extension. BUT the bitrate was still limited to same DVD rate so it could play.

So although we got 96kHz we got it at half the bitrate, so basically half the info is missing. So to me, DTS 96/24 is twice as lossy as DTS 48/24. Can DTS 96/24 sound better than DTS 48/24?

In fact DTS 96/24 streams are still an ordinary core DTS 48/24 stream, this using the available bit rate overwhelmingly, all the 96/24 extension does is to add a low rate "correction" stream. The core stream still operates at 48kHz (odd but true), even being received in the amp as such, so the idea of the bit rate being halved because the sample rate has doubled is not actually the truth of it. The proof of the pudding comes from the fact that old non-DTS 96/24 amps can still decode a DTS 96/24 stream, they just play the 48/24 core and ignore the extensions. The 96kHz sample rate only takes shape in the decoder in the amp, contrived from the 48kHz core samples plus corrective ones inserted in between them.

As for DTS 96/24 vs. lossless (the original topic), always the latter, DTS is an engineering compromise conveying an engineering compromise, not ignoble but it is still a case of "the fewer the better". However if having no lossless choice I always prefer e.g. a DVD's DTS stream over the Dolby one, somehow the audio is noticeably more precise, perhaps a lack of pre-echo?

 

[jimfisheye]

My original point and which all the tests I outlined concluded is that in this collection of different lossy formats and conversions, the outlier that altered the music the most was a core-only decode of dts2496.

The other still technically lossy paths do almost imperceptible damage even when listening with a reference system. The core-only decode would be apparent on any modest system.

Sure, we prefer lossless just because we can and there's no technology restrictions forcing compromise anymore. Pick your battles though.
Mastering damage is still the biggest player when it happens. Those shrill tinny CDs don't sound that way because of limitations of 44.1k sample rate or 16 bit sample size. It's garbage in, garbage out shit mastering work. (Convert your favorite 24/96 album to 16/44.1 yourself if you still don't realize this. It doesn't suddenly turn shrill and louder.)

These encoder schemes (going back to the vinyl matrix formats too) were crafty ways to cram multichannel into stereo-only containers and sorta kinda hear some of it back in a pinch. No disrespect there but also no sane reason to wrestle with this in the 21st century! The core-only dts (and the much worse dolby counterparts) are the most damaging lossy formats. Mp3 gets a lot of bad mouthing (as it should) but it's nowhere near as damaging. (Until you get into the 192k and lower bit rates anyway.)

 

[4-earredwonder]

Give me a good mastered dts over a less good mastered lossless album any day.

But think of how much better that well mastered dts disc would sound LOSSLESS?

 

[Ninecats]

Aye! A well mastered lossless is the way to go of course. But imo mastering has more impact on the human ear than higher bitrates, if you ask me.

 

[jimfisheye]

Aye! A well mastered lossless is the way to go of course. But imo mastering has more impact on the human ear than higher bitrates, if you ask me.

Agree 100%.
More impact by magnitudes.

There are enough variables that you can have all sorts of examples of one collection of destruction and mistakes being the more accurate copy of a master mix than another. Processing audio at lower sample rates and/or lower bit rates gets into compounding digital generation loss that can become apparent quickly. There are weird edge cases. But with just capturing and containing it, even the lowly portable formats like CD and mp3 can hold full sound. It's garbage in, garbage out. When you hear garbage coming out, that means someone put garbage in. It sounds funny to say but I know there are examples out there where a 320k mp3 would contain a better sounding copy of some album than a bluray disc. (Better = closer to what the actual master sounded like in this example. As opposed to a subjective use where you might call an alteration of an original master mix better sounding than the original.)

Then you get the two wrongs making a right scenarios that make an engineer want to scream. Like a treble hyped mastering sounding more accurate in overall balance with the dolby encoded surround version that dulls the sound from the lossy dolby vs the lossless version.


Where this whole thread was going is:
If you are hearing what sounds like mad loss and artifacts in your dts2496 DVDs, it really would behoove you to look into decoding them properly. It will be like you suddenly got this big pile of upgrades to dive into and enjoy!