Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work

#Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work manual
#Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work ps3

Reading the Wiki on Dolby DD+: it appears there should be a legacy DD stream(core) _at 640_ as part of any DD+ audio encode.

#Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work manual

Always a problem when devices have no provision for a manual override of their auto settings _and_ 'they' make the wrong choice. Your receiver, which is capable of decoding the, could be switching to PCM mode, then cycling again (periodically, from your description). This is a common bitrate for PCM, which may be part of the problem. I prefer to send the receiver the bitstream because it can process it and apply other effects like dynamic compression (aka 'late night mode) that would not be available if you send it PCM.->Isn't AC3 encoding pretty standard at 384? The difference is that the receiver starts with all 5.1 channels and so can route the LFE (the. The receiver now decodes that and sends each channel to its respective speaker but with only 2.1 speakers attached, the receiver also has to downmix. When you output a bitstream it is a single stream that contains all 5.1 channels.

#Dolby digital 5.1 192 kbps vs 448 kbps work ps3

If you had 5.1 speakers you could then use a matrix decoder like PLII to turn it back into 5.1 (but it will be slightly different than what you'd get if you had the ps3 output bitstream). There is no longer a dedicated LFE channel as it was folded into the 2 channel mix and the receiver sees it as 2 channel. Am I making incorrect assumptions here? What do you recommend?Д¬lick to expand.It's a subtle difference but when you set the PS3 to output PCM it decodes and downmixes the 5.1 channels to 2 channels.

On the other hand, a 150 Kbps (75 for each channel) MP3 can sometimes sound a bit rough with artifacts, etc.Дoes DTS and Dolby compression compare to MP3 compression, or is it less efficient? If it's about the same, then DTS would certainly be my best option because it would give me multi-channel output (the LFE channel is all I'm concerned with really) and sound quality that is indiscernible from uncompressed CD audio to my ears. One doesn't seem to be commonly regarded as superior to the other, just different.ДЇrom listening tests with MP3s, I don't believe I can discern the difference between a 512 Kbps (256 for each channel) MP3 and an uncompressed Red Book CD. I was surprised that there was such a big difference between the bitrates of the two formats, because DTS isn't regarded as being clearly superior to Dolby from what I've read. Divided between 6 channels, that's 256 Kbps per channel. My receiver reads the bitrate for DTS as 1536 Kbps. Divided between 6 channels, that's less than 75 Kbps per channel.

If one of the multi-channel formats is my better option, then which one? My receiver reads the bitrate for Dolby as 448 Kbps. The sound is compressed, but I get a LFE channel. Otherwise, I can set it to Dolby or DTS multi-channel. The sound is uncompressed, but I get no LFE channel. I can set the PS3 to output 2-channel PCM. My receiver down-mixes everything to 2.1 for me.ДЇor music, I have the PS3 outputting 44.1 kHz 2-channel PCM to the receiver. I have my PS3 connected to my Yamaha RX-V659 receiver through optical digital TOSLINK. I'm continuing an off-topic discussion from the following thread: