DTS
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
>download a movie yesterday
>literally one quarter of the bitrate was audio
JUST STOP IT
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Do you know what year it is?
It's
2 0 1 5
0
1
5
Just stop using DTS.
It's older than fucking MP3.
Did you know that DTS has each channel encoded SEPERATELY.
And at a CONSTANT bit rate.
You are only embarrassing yourself.
You are on the wrong side of history.
Here's what you stupid fucking sceners have to do:
Instead of extracting the lossy core, decode losslessly, then encode with either opus or lc-aac.
>>51281798
dumb xiphposter
>autism
Opus supports up to 255 channels, that should be enough even for the most advanced autism.
>>51281798
>dts
Why would you add it to a stream that already has a lossless FLAC audio stream?
Did you also know that lossy DTS is several dB louder than the source, because humans think that louder sounds better?
If I want my movie to be louder, I'll raise the fucking volume myself.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>51281882
thats the lossy dts transcoded to flac
why would you give a fuck about this autistic shit
if the audio is there and the video isn't total shit the upload is good you godforsaken genetic failure
>>51281978
Fuck you.
Why should i have to download an extra gigabyte of bloat?
>>51281919
Volume =/= dB
Beggars can't be choosers.
>>51281798
What if they just remuxed the source audio?
>>51282011
Buy the movie, then you don't have to download anything.
>>51282497
If I download a 5Mbps 720p rip, I don't want the source audio, I just want transparent audio at a reasonable bitrate. Like 320-448Kbps for 5.1.
Scene rips are barely passable.
Fucking autists think it means anything if they were 'the first' to release it.
>>51282704
That's not it, the scene just has shitty guidelines for ripping because they want to support things like people burning the rips to DVD and playing on shitty old DVD players that support DivX.
Releases get downboated if they don't conform to the scene rules and the scene rules are shit that emphasize wide compatibility over quality so that shitskins don't have to learn how to install a media player.
>>51281798
I always decode my downloaded DTS-HDMA tracks with dcadec to WAV, then to FLAC, then remux without the DTS-HDMA track. Shit ain't hard, bud.
>>51282027
R E K T
E
K
T
>>51281798
>Instead of extracting the lossy core, decode losslessly, then encode with either opus or lc-aac.
>transcoding lossy audio to lossy audio
top lel
>>51283732
This thread isn't about remuxes
>encode webm with the reference encoder
>4chan says it corrupt
bravo hiro
>>51284068
>transcoding lossy audio to lossy audio
learn2read
>>51282027
>>51283973
and you call me the autist
>>51281798
You want to do a better job? Start uploading your own releases.
Not interested? then fuck off.
>>51284194
>learn2read
What the fuck does "decode losslessly" even mean? If the source is DTS then converting that one to FLAC and then to Opus/AAC-LC doesn't do shit since the source still was lossy.
>>51281798
>literally one quarter of the bitrate was audio
Educate yourself please
>>51281798
>lc-aac.
>not using he-aac
>>51284237
"DTS-HD Master Audio" is lossless.
It's the most common lossless format on blu-ray.
>>51284241
Ok, you got me. It was actually 21.22%
>>51284319
Then state you mean DTS-HD MA, duh. I mean you literally wrote:
>It's older than fucking MP3.
>Instead of extracting the lossy core
Of course if the source is lossless converting to FLAC may make sense, even though DTS-HD MA is way more compatible with AV receiver passthrough than FLAC/PCM 5.1 or even AAC 5.1.
>>51284388
it was implied, take another ESL class
>>51284203
We have Daiz for that.
Needed to fix my post a bit, so repost here:
With the second sentence yes, though I understood it as:
Instead of extracting [& remuxing] the lossy core, decode losslessly (which made no sense to me since I didn't know you were talking about DTS HD-MA and not just normal DTS, where lossy DEcoding would be kinda strange) then encode with either opus or lc-aac (Why not just using a transcoder that's able to use DTS-HD MA as source?).
Also, DTS-HD MA is not older than MP3. DTS (Core) is though. Learn to write your rant properly.
But muh backwards compatibility. Can you bitstream your Flac over S/PDIF? I think not.
Everyone should just switch to AC3. But really, most encodes just extract the core from the source audiotrack, because that's fast, and since a lot of movies come with DTS-HD MA on the BD, that means DTS Core for you.
>>51281798
You'll never convince the movie scene. I can't believe the anime scene is way ahead of them.
For once, OP is definitely not a faggot and has a point.
>>51285520
the anime scene has always been ahead of every other scene ever
more autists
>>51285576
this desu senpai
nobody cares more about encoding quality than weeaboos
and just watch /a/ argue over CR vs HorribleSubs vs Commie subs
>he watches a movie on his computer with headphones instead on a home theater with surround sound
>>51281798
Damn, another anon who knows about audio filesizes.
Yup, DTS core from DTS-MA, or worse, taking the AC-3 track when there's TrueHD, is absolutely retarded. Both are old as fuck. You have the lossless, so take it and encode in a modern format.
768kbps QAAC >>> 1503kbps DTS. 448k is probably better.
>>51285650
>implying
also surround sound is a meme
>>51282072
No reason not to get the info out there. Encoders aren't some magical beings, they operate based on outdated info and memes just like anyone else.
When I got back into encoding last year after taking a near 15 year break, I was like, "So I'm going to encode this in LAME v0." I got laughed at by everyone and was quickly introduced to AAC and Opus.
DTS and AC-3 are really crappy. They make up for it somewhat with high bitrates, but that goes against your entire purpose as an encoder. We encode because 20-40GB Blurays are just unwieldy at typical home broadband speeds, and even with 6-8TB drives they fill up fast, meaning you need an array which most people don't have the money, time, or patience for. So we encode.
Leaving an extra gigabyte in audio is retarded. Leaving an extra three or four for "muh lossless" is even more retarded. Why the fuck would you reencode already lossy video before hitting that lossless audio that can be massively reduced with absolutely zero perceptible quality loss?
>>51286011
so why isn't there a /g/ release group
>>51286032
We'd need a logo...
Where do people get GOOD movie torrents? I don't know where to go except KAT and TPB, and everything there is shit.
>>51281798
DTS is lossy, reencoding it is against best practice
Also, DTS is supported by pretty much any receiver out there
>>51286084
Kat has got GRYM and GCJM
https://kat.cr/user/vonRicht/uploads/
Releases newer/popular movies with high quality and seeds.
https://kat.cr/user/gcjm/uploads/
Releases mostly older and known stuff but high quality and seeds.
People rag on against DTS and the audio these 2 use but they are my favorites.
other good one is rutracker (just check the video info in the threads) and Rarbg
>>51286084
duckduckgo
>>51284602
What he said is perfectly clear to any encoder.
DTS core means the lossy DTS that's the core of a DTS-MA track. "Instead of extracting the core" -- we know what it's extracted from. If there's only DTS you're not "extracting the DTS core,' you're just remuxing the DTS.
>>51286136
>rutracker
It's Russian, though. Is there an English version of something?
>>51286032
Some autists made a few releases to compete with yiffy, but they dropped it after like 1 release
>>51285696
that is 2 speakers, not even proper in any way shape or form. you are a fucking moron, but i guess since you said meme you are off the hook for forming a rational thought
>>51286161
Rutracker is easy as shit to navigate, you only need translate the register part of it and then you can use your experience to search and click around.
>>51286161
It's not hard once you memorize what's the download button, torrent names are in english usually
>>51286141
Yeah I know by now. Originally I thought extract was meant in the way of "extracting from Source container" since OP ranted about DTS and only at the end about the group's stupidity to extract the core from the lossless source. I just didn't know that there are idiots who extract the DTS core and remux it. I thought the source was DTS, not DTS HD MA.
lol still better than flac audio streams
Send help
>>51285695
>>51286227
Nothing really wrong with flac; it's 24-bit thats the problem. Especially for old movies. High quality analogue tape has only about 13 bits of accuracy, while modern ADCs only have about 20. 16-bit flac will only be 2-3 times larger than a good lossy encode, and almost always smaller than 1.5M DTS.
>>51286032
What's the point of making a group?
I encode. I release. But it's not a job. Good filesharers may be generous with their free bandwidth, but other than that they're typically selfish fucks. That's why they're stealing. Why would anyone want to set things up so a bunch of leeches think they're entitled to a constant stream of content coming out of you?
Fuck that. You get what I give you.
>>51281798
>opus
fuck you
>>51286438
>Stealing
>>51286438
>they're typically selfish fucks. That's why they're stealing.
I don't agree. I just don't think I have any obligation to pay for media. I consider paying for media to be a charitable donation, and I have better charities to give to than Hollywood.
I'm actually quite generous. I'm just not generous to people who make the movies I watch.
>>51286431
>Nothing really wrong with flac; it's 24-bit thats the problem. Especially for old movies. High quality analogue tape has only about 13 bits of accuracy, while modern ADCs only have about 20. 16-bit flac will only be 2-3 times larger than a good lossy encode, and almost always smaller than 1.5M DTS.
lol, no. Opus is transparent at ~160 kbps even if you have $1,000 headphones. Flac on average uses ~1.2 Mbps of bitrate. That makes flac more than 7 times as big as an opus audio stream. Even at 5.1 audio channels Opus is transparent around ~320 kbps
The problem is flac should NEVER be used to encode audio streams on movies or tv shows. Flac belongs with placebo autists who listen to music nobody gives a fuck about.
>>51286185
You also need to not be retarded and make sure you're downloading something with the original audio included.
Would having a good ratio on rutracker help convince anyone to invite me to a real private tracker? I'm still a public tracker pleb but may have to change my ways for some movies/shows I can't find quality rips for. I know I'll probably have to just follow the regular guides for getting in but I've always wondered that about places like rutracker and asiatorrents.
>>51286767
What does [audio codec/container] being 'transparent' mean
sry tard
>>51286770
I have never grabbed a release from Rutracker that DID NOT include original audio, it always comes .
>>51286767
>Flac on average uses ~1.2 Mbps of bitrate
That's retarded
1.2 Mbps of bitrate is higher than the bitrate 16 bit PCM has
>The problem is flac should NEVER be used to encode audio streams on movies or tv shows. Flac belongs with placebo autists who listen to music nobody gives a fuck about.
FLAC belongs in archival, and does it's job pretty fine
You seem to not know anything about what you're talking about
>>51286770
>Would having a good ratio on rutracker help convince anyone to invite me to a real private tracker?
Sometimes
You could sign up to some open "private" tracker, Libble.me it's pretty damn easy to get in and have good ratio, and even get invites
Anyways, >>>/ptg/
>>51284541
Fuck Daiz.
>>51286594
Thank you for being an example of the self-centered shitstains I was talking about. Even though you watch them voraciously, you look down on what Hollywood has produced for you. Even "free" isn't good enough for THIS special snowflake! So, as far as you're concerned, the encoder is doing nothing for you. His products are just more things to complain about. "Why aren't they released faster? Why aren't they smaller? Why aren't they better quality? I want I want I want!"
You contribute nothing of value and think the world owes you a living for it. Funny that I'm not going to go out of my way provide you shit you think you're entitled to.
>>51286792
>What does [audio codec/container] being 'transparent' mean
Basically the point at which a lossy audio codec sounds the same compared to a lossless WAV/FLAC. At this point using more bitrate is considered a placebo since you audibly won't gain any improvement whatsoever.
I should make note though, Opus becomes transparent at 160 kbps if you have a good pair of headphones, make it 128 kbps if you have some $10 earbuds you picked up at wallmart or bought on ebay. Also assuming VBR is used.
>>51286935
Yeah, OK. Tell me, what in my post actually supports any of those claims? Exactly nothing.
You can't make up insults based on no evidence and pretend it's an argument, friend.
>>51286935
Wow. What's this guy's problem?
>>51286985
>Basically the point at which a lossy audio codec sounds the same compared to a lossless WAV/FLAC. At this point using more bitrate is considered a placebo since you audibly won't gain any improvement whatsoever.
Sometimes some samples are able to trigger artifact even at bitrate highers than 160 kbps
>I should make note though, Opus becomes transparent at 160 kbps if you have a good pair of headphones, make it 128 kbps if you have some $10 earbuds you picked up at wallmart or bought on ebay. Also assuming VBR is used.
You have never heard lossy artifacts right? They are usually pretty noticeable regardless of headphones
>>51287120
>"Your average filesharer isn't generous"
>"I'm generous! I just deserve everything for free and fuck everyone who doesn't give it to me! But because in my head I tell myself I might give a nickel to someone working on a cure for cancer (well not really, because they should be working on that for free -- cancer being bad and all) that means I'm generous!"
LOL. Keep telling yourself that.
>>51286801
>>Flac on average uses ~1.2 Mbps of bitrate
>That's retarded
Indeed it is and 16 bit PCM is 1411 kbps you moron. FLAC compresses music differently depending on how complex it is so some people might see FLAC average 1 Mbps while others 1.2 Mbps. I see 1.2 Mbps for flac on most of the music I try to compress.
>FLAC belongs in archival, and does it's job pretty fine
For music maybe but not for movies/tv shows ESPECIALLY when 160 kbps Opus can be used instead and more bitrate can go to video.
>>51287141
>Sometimes some samples are able to trigger artifact even at bitrate highers than 160 kbps
Well those samples don't seem to do that with Opus. Even with problematic samples Opus still sounds transparent at 160 kbps. Haven't seen anyone post abx test results to prove otherwise
>You have never heard lossy artifacts right? They are usually pretty noticeable regardless of headphones
Yes I have, I can hear them clearly at 48 kbps Opus and sometimes at 80 kbps Opus. However I have bombed all abx tests between 128 kbps and flac, never being able to find any audio artifacts. This is the vbr I use for the music I have on my phone which I listen to often.
>>51287321
how loud you listen to music
i hear mistakes in non lossless music easily when i listen to it loud
>>51287191
Now find a single place in my post that actually supports any of those claims.
>But because in my head I tell myself I might give a nickel to someone working on a cure for cancer (well not really, because they should be working on that for free -- cancer being bad and all) that means I'm generous!"
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't deduce things from no evidence. You are making up whatever bullshit you feel like with no concern for the truth, and it shows.
I donate 25% of my income to charity. That isn't nearly enough, but it is FAR above the national average of ~4%.
>>51287340
>how loud you listen to music
40-60% on my phone, I never go past that.
>i hear mistakes in non lossless music easily when i listen to it loud
I've tried upping the volume a few times to hear the artifacts but I couldn't. Also please don't listen to music on high volume. You'll get hearing damage and possibly become partially deaf before 30.
>>51287191
If you're want to know my REAL position on charity rather than just attacking a straw man, you should read a book called "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer.
I agree with almost all of it. Singer is a utilitarian, while I am not. The book still works even from a non-utilitarian perspective, though, and is written for a popular audience.
>>51287406
I've used the equipment my friend has, he spent 25k euros on his sound setup at his home.
>Dont listen to music at high volume
I am already partially deaf I guess.
>>51285696
Never mind, just buy headphones.
>>51287436
>he spent 25k euros on his sound setup at his home.
That's fucking expensive.
Is it actually any good or is it placebo shit?
>>51286431
>24-bit
Even 16-bit is overkill and below the noise floor unless you're listening in an anechoic chamber.
>>51281798
ex machina was trash anyway
>>51287458
He is extremely autistic and built it out of things I had never heard before and did a year of research for it.
I assume it's good. It does sound good.
>>51287436
>I've used the equipment my friend has, he spent 25k euros on his sound setup at his home.
I didn't know people literally did this in real life, I thought it was just a meme. Fuck, did he use diamond cables and shit?
does it matter? the sound wasn't even a big part of the movie
>>51281798
SHIT MOVIE TASTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 I BET YOU DOWNLOAD CARS FROM DISNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I BET YOU PLAY CAR TOWN ON FACEBOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I BET YOU THINK OF THE MINNIONS WHEN YOU SHOVE A TINKY UP YOUR MOUTH AND EAT IT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
there's nothing wrong with non Xiph, XIPHER
>>51287513
No he did not. I don't exactly remember the brands he used, a lot of them were new to me.
He also got the high cost equipment at cheaper price due to his background and history, so ti probably cost more than that (if he hadn't gotten it cheaper)
>>51282027
u wot m8
>>51286767
>placebo autists
Are autists really susceptible to placebo?
>>51287672
well why do you think we get dozens of corporate shills everyday on /g/ trying to peddle their obsolescence crapware.
>>51287672
Yup, a few years from now they will be gloating about how "good" their lossless 1TB movies look compared to your standard 4-6 GB HQ 1080p HEVC rip.
>>51287839
But the 1TB lossless movie WOULD look better than a 4-6GB 1080p HEVC rip.
A 10-20 GB rip would look lossless to the naked eye.
>>51287532
well you can't tell it's bad if you haven't downloaded it yet...
>>51287920
wew lad
This is HEVC we're talking about pal, not ancient H264. I'm also assuming the encoder isn't a dipshit and used the {slower} preset and a CRF of 10.
>>51287967
How is HEVC so much more efficient than x264 then?
sry tard again
>>51287967
HEVC isn't magic. It's ~20% smaller than H264. You could still notice the difference between 4 GB and lossless.
>CRF of 10
What do HEVC CRFs mean? I'm only familiar with H264 CRFs.
>>51287982
>It's ~20% smaller than H264.
It's claimed to be 50% smaller, but no one believes that.
>>51287980
~40% compared to H264. However encoding times are still ~8 times longer than H264. Basically HEVC gives you the same visual quality compared to H264 and uses almost half the bitrate of H264. HEVC is still being improved though, we could see lower encoding times and 50% better efficiency next year. I'm waiting until then to use it for anything. Also HEVC requires more resources to be decoded, currently only exynos phones can smoothly decode 1080p HEVC on software mode. Though any quad core/i3 PC should have no problem decoding 1080p HEVC.
>>51287982
More like 40% smaller, HEVC has been improved a lot.
HEVC and H264 CRF are pretty much the same, they both target quality. 28 CRF is yify quality, 22 CRF is okay quality, 16 CRF is high quality, and 10 CRF is considered archival quality.
>>51281798
Fuck you OP, get a better stereo.
>inb4 N33tbux explanation
5.1 is the minimum anyone should have nowadays.
>>51281798
Dts on those rips is 24-bit and opus is only 16-bit.
You can eaysily hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit.
>>51288093
>28 CRF is yify quality, 22 CRF is okay quality, 16 CRF is high quality, and 10 CRF is considered archival quality.
Is it just the same as H264?
What about with 10 bit? With 10 bit H264 the CRF goes up to 63 rather than just 51. Is that so with HEVC, too?
Why would an encoder distribute encodes with a CRF of 10? That's a total placebo with H264.
>>51288124
lol, if 5.1 surround is so GOAT why do artist keep releasing music in stereo CDs and stereo MP3/AAC downloads?
>>51288225
because most people cant benefit from it? dumb retard.
>>51288263
I was hoping that would be implied but wtvr
Good luck trying to play multichannel opus on your surround receiver.
>>51288263
>Hurr durr I can't use it so the world should cater to me
Enjoy your stereo sound gramps.
>>51288225
>Hurr durr everything should be judged by one subsection of a field
Can't hear you over all movies being in glorious DTS/AC3 5.1 minimum encodes.
>>51288214
>Is it just the same as H264?
I'm not really sure, reading articles online just yields that HEVC CRF is still experimental as they improve HEVC. My personnel encodes have yielded very similar visual quality using the same CRF settings but HEVC always manages to be 30-40% smaller than H264.
>What about with 10 bit? With 10 bit H264 the CRF goes up to 63 rather than just 51. Is that so with HEVC, too?
That's what I was encoding my sample files in. I'm not sure about the max CRF value thing though, I never looked at that.
>Why would an encoder distribute encodes with a CRF of 10? That's a total placebo with H264.
Because 16 CRF still leaves a few very minor artifacts that some autists might notice and bitch about. 10 CRF ensures even autists won't bitch about artifacts.
Though I would be fine if they used 16 CRF, hell even 22 CRF would be okay for my phone.
>>51288347
>>Hurr durr I can't use it so the world should cater to me
>Enjoy your stereo sound gramps.
That literally sounds like you. 90% of people probably don't even have a 5.1 surround setup you special snowflake.
>>51288407
>Because 16 CRF still leaves a few very minor artifacts that some autists might notice and bitch about.
They wouldn't notice unless they paused and went looking. Anything much below 20 CRF is a placebo.
>>51288461
True. Though I would prefer encoders use 16 CRF for "muh quality" especially for animu which requires a lower bitrate than action films to encode.
>>51288347
Also please don't post any images that could identify you. Many r9k tripfags had to learn this the hard way.
>>51288504
>Many r9k tripfags had to learn this the hard way.
wut?
>>51287321
>Well those samples don't seem to do that with Opus. Even with problematic samples Opus still sounds transparent at 160 kbps. Haven't seen anyone post abx test results to prove otherwise
There's problematic samples for Opus too m8
>>51288124
You didn't know AAC and Opus were perfectly capable of 5.1?
>>51288347
surround sound is objectively superior to stereo, but holy shit there is nothing to brag about in that picture
>>51288566
Looks like a fine setup to me. It is SUPER fucking messy, though.
>>51287234
>Indeed it is and 16 bit PCM is 1411 kbps you moron. FLAC compresses music differently depending on how complex it is so some people might see FLAC average 1 Mbps while others 1.2 Mbps. I see 1.2 Mbps for flac on most of the music I try to compress.
The latest comparison from Martin indicates that FLAC does around 57% of the original WAV, ie. around 0.8 Mbps
>http://www.audiograaf.nl/losslesstest/Lossless%20audio%20codec%20comparison%20-%20revision%204.pdf
>For music maybe but not for movies/tv shows ESPECIALLY when 160 kbps Opus can be used instead and more bitrate can go to video.
If you're achieving movies/tvshows you still need lossless audio
>>51287967
HEVC isn't wrecking h264 yet, x264 still edges most state of the art HEVC encoders
>>51288528
We've had stalkers come after tripfags and many have been doxed. It should go without saying but even tripfags here should remain somewhat anonymous (don't post face, location details, emails) and if they want attention THAT bad should kindly fuck off to cumblr or whatever.
>>51288615
no, it looks like someone literally living in their barents closet with speakers so close together it ruins the entire fucking concept of positioning. not to mention that sorry excuse for a receiver probably doesnt even have a mic to calibrate.
it is a fucking embarrassment
>>51287982
>What do HEVC CRFs mean? I'm only familiar with H264 CRFs.
Last time I checked nothing, it's still not standardized, it probably will follow h264 CRF's
>>51288160
Opus is a transform codec, it doesn't have a bit depth, just like MP3/AAC/Vorbis
It can reproduce 32 bit audio perfectly fine
>>51288653
You aren't archiving anything.
>>51288816
I actually have achieved transfers from old tapes/film of family videos in FFV1/FLAC/MKV, great way to save space, and FFV1 has error checking features
>>51288844
That's a pretty long way of telling other you're autistic.
You could just use 10 CRF H264 you know.
>>51287513
Are you you implying expensive equipment is dumb or "placebo" just because it's expensive? If I had a house and enough money 25k would not cover my listening room. This while steering clear of shit that doesn't matter like cables or spending the dough on shitty "audiophile" gear. Good loudspeakers, necessary equipment to drive them as well as room treatment would be easily above 25k.
>>51288844
Something for your kids to throw out.
>>51288887
I don't know what could happen down the way, that's the point of achieving
It's also easier, and even faster, to just capture straight to FFV1 in VirtualDub, convert to FLAC and mux to MKV using FFMpeg
I could skip FLAC and save just keep stuff as AVI, but I trust that FLAC and MKV will be around a long time, and the space savings are nice
>>51288895
Some of this reels are from my grandfathers infancy, they haven't been thrown out so far
I'm pretty confident some of them are the first video recordings in the town they were recorded
>>51288888
>Are you you implying expensive equipment is dumb or "placebo" just because it's expensive?
Well duh. If you spend over 1K on equipment to listen to music you might have autism.
>If I had a house and enough money 25k would not cover my listening room. This while steering clear of shit that doesn't matter like cables or spending the dough on shitty "audiophile" gear. Good loudspeakers, necessary equipment to drive them as well as room treatment would be easily above 25k.
So you'd rather spend 25k+ on placebo audio equipment then on a retirement account? Nice, I bet your 60 year old self will be very grateful even though he can barely hear anything even with hearing aids or frequencies above 12 Khz.
>>51287967
No. You possibly could push a 20% smaller file size with HEVC vs H264 right now if you want the video to look identical to the lossless one during watching on both formats. HEVC has the edge when you push the file size smaller and smaller. At the lower bitrates HEVC can use 50% of the bitrate while looking subjectively equally good as H264. They will look different and considerably worse than the original.
>>51288949
retirement funds are jew bait
>>51288949
Are you retarded? 1k is literally nothing. And I can prioritise my expenses, hence I said IF I HAD the money. Stop using the word placebo as you obviously don't seem to understand what it implies. You can spend 40k on garbage tier audio equipment or you can spend it to get a state of the art stereo listening setup. Either of them is not necessarily placebo, just dumb as fuck or enthusiasm. While price is a terrible indication of quality in audio, the very best gear does cost a lot. I could see myself doing this one day if I'm well off enough.
>>51289103
>Stop using the word placebo as you obviously don't seem to understand what it implies.
You sure as hell don't. Do you even know what audio transparency is?
>You can spend 40k on garbage tier audio equipment or you can spend it to get a state of the art stereo listening setup. Either of them is not necessarily placebo
Both are placebo. More than 1K on audio listening equipment is considered placebo for home listening.
>I could see myself doing this one day if I'm well off enough.
hmm huh, okay boss have fun with your magic audio stones, $1,000 DACs, and ceramic cable lifters.
>>51288566
>surround sound is objectively superior to stereo
Why? I don't see any obvious benefit of surround sound for music listening. It makes sense for large theater room settings.
>>51281798
>doesn't know about dts hd
retard
>>51289357
yeah sorry, you are correct in that sense. the only thing a surround sound would do would be to fill a room because you would set it to stereo mode, but since rear speakers are different than fronts... meh
>>51281798
I'm not a poor YIFY fag, I actually have a well balanced 7.1 channel system
DTS is a godsend compared to stereo 96kbps AAC
Go fuck yourself
>>51281798
>be me
>connect sweet new receiver to sweet new DVD player
>be watching movie on a screen-box in front of me
>sounds come from behind me
>da fuck was that?
>look away from screen
>nothing there
>keep watching animated window box
>noise from behind me
>da fuq was that?
Anything beyond stereo + center + sub is literally retarded.
DTS was awesome for one and only one reason: it was (supposedly) the EXACT track used in the theater release. Too many movies had some dipshit wannabe engineer remixing the audio and putting out utter shit onto DVDs.
>>51285696
Poorfags are real.
>>51290308
>sub
meme
>>51289273
I do and it applies mostly to encoders, amplifiers and DACs. As well as the obvious stuff like cables. Speakers and listening rooms are not placebo. They show massive differences in fidelity even in the most basic stuff like frequency response.
You can't get a pair of studio monitors which extend from 40Hz to 20khz with 1k. Not to mention that they will sound like ass if your room is untreated and almost all of them will be pretty inaccurate too.
You are the biggest moron if you are serious with that blanket statement of "more than 1K on audio listening equipment is considered placebo for home listening". Even if you changed the again misused word 'placebo' with something like 'pointless' it would still be dumb for multiple reasons.
>>51282027
Decibels in general are a dimesionless unit of ratios measured on a logarithmical scale, however in this particular case it refers to volume.
>>51293535
Holy fucking shit, you are autistic as fuck.
>>51293535
placebo autism: the post
>>51293535
You do know the human ear can't hear above 20 Khz right?
>>51284163
who is this asian persuasion?
>>51288667
good riddance
>>51296163
Kyoko-chan
