Not lossless, but I'll take anything I can get.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/01...gn=homepage&utm_medium=internal&utm_source=dl
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/01...gn=homepage&utm_medium=internal&utm_source=dl
They've used DD+ for all surround sound for quite some years. The change they're making now is merely an increase in bit rate.I wonder if they've already done this for some of their movies. I've had the Dolby Digital Plus illuminate on quite a few Netflix movies.
I struggle every month when I see the bill not to cancel. It's been quite a while since I felt I was getting value for my money when it came to the offerings I viewed each month. They add more and move new internally made garbage that gets worse and worse with time.I have only one additional request: decent movies rather than this commercial drivel.
"Lossless" and "compressed" are not mutually exclusive. A FLAC recording can be either compressed or uncompressed. Both will be lossless.According to Netflix, its "high-quality sound feature is not lossless, but it is perceptually transparent." So while the audio will be compressed
I strongly doubt bitrates that high are necessary for transparency. The fact that the internal report is top secret doesn't alleviate my suspicion.Through internal tests, Netflix determined that, for Dolby Digital Plus, 640 kbps is the point at which additional quality is imperceivable, and for Dolby Atmos, Netflix says the threshold is 768 kbps.
640 is not enough and 768 is not either, we are talking 6 or 8 channels that share the bandwidth. Those 768kbit are divided between 6? channels. 768/6 = 128kbit/ channel (Not sure about the specs) and Dolby TrueHD is 8 channels with up to 18Mbit total bandwidth.I strongly doubt bitrates that high are necessary for transparency. The fact that the internal report is top secret doesn't alleviate my suspicion.
Dolby Digital Plus
, also known as Enhanced AC-3 (and commonly abbreviated as DD+ or E-AC-3, or EC-3) is a digital audio compression scheme developed by Dolby Labs for transport and storage of multi-channel digital audio. It is a successor to Dolby Digital (AC-3), also developed by Dolby, and has a number of improvements including support for a wider range of data rates (32 Kbit/s to 6144 Kbit/s), increased channel count and multi-program support (via substreams), and additional tools (algorithms) for representing compressed data and counteracting artifacts. While Dolby Digital (AC-3) supports up to five full-bandwidth audio channels at a maximum bitrate of 640 Kbit/s, E-AC-3 supports up to 15 full-bandwidth audio channels at a maximum bitrate of 6.144 Mbit/s.
Has anyone done multichannel blind tests? It should be as easy as doing it with 2 channel, with the right software, and without pictures, if you have a surround sound system. I'd be very interested to know if the thresholds change if you are also actively watching the picture.640 is not enough and 768 in not either, we are talking 6 or 8 channels that share the bandwidth. Those 768kbit are divided between 6? channels. 768/6 = 128kbit/ channel (Not sure about the specs) and Dolby TrueHD is 8 channels with up to 18Mbit total bandwidth.
640 is not enough and 768 is not either, we are talking 6 or 8 channels that share the bandwidth. Those 768kbit are divided between 6? channels. 768/6 = 128kbit/ channel
I have only one additional request: decent movies rather than this commercial drivel.
If Netflix states that there is a significant difference between 640 and 768 then you will want a lot more bandwidth than 768. But the most glaring thing about Netflix and every other streaming service is the lack of Mbit for the picture. Sound more or less takes second stage in that regard.I'm very tempted to believe them if there is no evidence to the contrary.
That's not what the article says, it does not state what the previous rate was, anyone know?If Netflix states that there is a significant difference between 640 and 768 then you will want a lot more bandwidth than 768.
Based on the Netflix rips I have access to it's 384 kbps, AC-3, 5.1ch.That's not what the article says, it does not state what the previous rate was, anyone know?