this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
33 points (92.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
190 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why is AC-3 bad? It's pretty much compatible with everything, holds Dolby Digital and atmos. Especially if the source is already encoded in AC-3, would it be wise to re-encode it?
if you already have AC-3 content you can leave it as is, however as a codec itself, it is worse then aac and opus in terms of fidelity:size
I agree that if it is already AAC, it should not be changed as it has the highest fidelity and best compression.
While AC-3 is not the best, it and AC-4 are the only formats i know that can encode TrueHD and Atmos metadata, so that should be kept it it is there.
Any transcode will lose fidelity unless the target codec is lossless, and I don't think AAC has a lossless mode.
yeah but OP is wondering about transcoding their stuff. there is no reason to encode to AC3. I would just use traditional surround if you plan kn transcoding it.