Looking for opinions on something. Which would make a better audio source? A 2.0 channel 192kbps ac3 at NTSC speed, or a 2.0 channel 384kbps ac3 at PAL speed? (assuming the PAL source would have to be slowed down and resampled).
2017-04-11, 09:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 2017-04-11, 09:32 PM by Stamper.)
One thing I remember, the 5.1 of the original Matrix Pal DVD sounded more dynamic than the NTSC version. Did anyone check?
I'm looking into getting all Kubricks films original mono mixes, what alternate is there for Clockwork Orange? The first DVD?
Honestly, it's hard to answer that question without having the two tracks in front of me. In theory, the 384kbps should be better... But, all of this is dependent on source of original, (their) method of transfer, and encoding technique. (NOT all encodes are the same, as I can take a lossless audio track and depending on what encoder I'm using - one 384kbps AC3 track will NOT be the same as another 384kbps AC3 track, even though it's the same source and the same output bitrate)
In all honesty, I would have to look at the spectral analysis and then do an A/B listening test to determine which one of the audio tracks is superior...
If you want, PM me a sample (or if you can't split the track without re-encoding, then send the whole thing) of both tracks and I'd be happy to tell you which one is superior and why... (just give me a day or two for response as I'm SWAMPED with projects right now, because I finally have the sources I needed to complete half a dozen projects that have been ongoing for two-three years!)