/tech/ - Technology★

ac3 and DTS are lossy, no reason to compare them to FLAC. I do convert TrueHD and DTS-HD MA streams to Flac, though.

>lossy codecs that are not Opus

Relics of the time, my friend!

>>989769

are you hard of reading? OP is not comparing AC3 and DTS to FLAC.

>>989805

Well, I was using w3m without images, so I didn't see the image.

>>989738 (OP)

They exist only to milk money from people.

At this point, pretty much any audio codec other than (FLAC, WavPack and Opus) doesn't need to exist.

what about backwards compat

>>990027

This. The typical setup for home theater is a digital connection, usually S/PDIF or HDMI, going to a receiver with a fixed function decoder built in, which generates actual PCM streams fed into the surround DAC & amplifier.

Many of them simply won't accept surround in any other format.

>>990024

They're even more obsolete now that Opus 1.3 implements ambisonics.

The first home format with surround sound was the Laserdisc, and Dolby Digital Sound was used to deliver this. Basically these days with the bandwidth and storage you have available on Blu-Ray there is no reason to compress the audio but they still do. I figure it's just laziness, most movies sold are old releases and they don't want to re-do the sound every time there is a format change.

>>990958

DolbyHD and DTS HD are different then the ac3 used in DVD and LDs. It's just a compressed PCM stream, equivalent to flac but not nearly as good