- Joined
- Oct 31, 2012
- Messages
- 141
I posted this in The Resistance thread but I guess it's relevant here as well.
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf
Page 25:
For example, consider Dolby Digital (DD) or DTS which have been in the market for more than 10 years: Dolby Digital requires 448 kbit/s and DTS still requires around 1.5 Mbit/s for "Excellent" quality. The newer codecs, such as Dolby Digital Plus or Windows Media provide "Excellent" quality only if operating at 448 kbit/s or above.
And this is the follow-up study: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3339.pdf
Where, on page 20, you can check table n. 10, that shows how DD at 448kbps still produces good results. Note that this second study concentrated more on multiple transcoding scenarios, if I understand correctly, which are probably likely in a broadcast scenario.
So, basically, it's ok to use DTS 1.5 when available. But a better master in DD will most likely sound better than a worse master in DTS.
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf
Page 25:
For example, consider Dolby Digital (DD) or DTS which have been in the market for more than 10 years: Dolby Digital requires 448 kbit/s and DTS still requires around 1.5 Mbit/s for "Excellent" quality. The newer codecs, such as Dolby Digital Plus or Windows Media provide "Excellent" quality only if operating at 448 kbit/s or above.
And this is the follow-up study: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3339.pdf
Where, on page 20, you can check table n. 10, that shows how DD at 448kbps still produces good results. Note that this second study concentrated more on multiple transcoding scenarios, if I understand correctly, which are probably likely in a broadcast scenario.
So, basically, it's ok to use DTS 1.5 when available. But a better master in DD will most likely sound better than a worse master in DTS.