DTS audio music (5.1 channel) is better or CD Audio (Stereo Audio) music?

ranjeetrain you forgot the basics.vilfy is highlighting that point.

In movie MC makes sense.Movie means sound from different direction make sense and enchances the experience.

Would you like to hear a jazz with percussion heard from you back? In live show do you prefer sound from back?
Only movie songs makes some sense to me.
More data means more perfect reproduction agreed but does means that matchs the orginal source.

Our culture has carried music as stereo(or say 3.1,3.1 existed for long while).We won't listen to music my sitting in center of a hall with every body playing around you.

In case of entry level MC.It enhances the stage.Place your rear speakers of an entry level AVR at 15-20 degrees from you at front and hear in PLII.You get a better sound stage.Even when the speakers are in rear it gaves a encapsulating effect.This is the point I am try to put.

Right now I am thinking like tat.I am not agaist change but it should make sense.May be in future if it makes sense I will move towards MC.(I may want all the players to surrond me and make sound from 21.4 channels one bit here and one there)

MM, the basics as you put will not be same for everyone. To you it makes sense to listen to all songs in 2C with all sound coming from front. To me, it may mean I would like to be in the middle of the concert hall. Or I would like to feel the reverb exactly the way it was had I been there at the recording venue.

One more point. When you say MC, it doesn't mean all DTS tracks must contain all channel information. Depending on the recording requirements, some channels may contain data, some may not.

Like you, I and everyone else agrees, its a debatable topic. So you cannot pass a judgement on 2C being better than MC or vice versa.

But as a matter of fact, MC is technically far superior, sounds a lot better and is capable of reproducing the recording alive with a much better precision. Rest the debate can go on and on various fronts such as availability of media, precision of recording, artifacts in surround processing blah blah blah.

What I feel is even if its 2 channel DVD audio will be far superior coz its at 24bit, 192 khz where as our normal audio cds are 16bit 44khz. Like in movies the most hard working speakers is the centre channel. Maybe in multi channel audio, most of it would be through front speakers, sub and centre. And for some effects where it’s required the surround would come to use.
But even if this multi channel audio is heard in a stereo format it would sound better due to the better sampling rate

Bang on. MC or HD audio critics should at least hear these formats once. The differences are such startling, if one cannot hear it, doesn't need a hifi

Rikhav, how about 4 to 7 mbps, 48khz DTS-HD MA [though it can carry upto 24 mbps none of the movies / music videos I've seen exceeded 7mbps]? I know, many members has access to DTS MA channel [vinay/vkiran/vivek etc]


Agreed

Hey Suniil
You have access to such formats?

Which artists?

I've some funds allocated every month to spend on AV Gear from my OH [as I don't drink/smoke etc..]

Bluray
a. Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City : True HD
b. Celine Dion: A New Day… Live in Las Vegas : True HD
c. Shakira - Oral Fixation - LPCM @ 1.5mbps
d. Destiny child - live in atlanta LPCM
e. Queen Rocks Montreal - LPCM

HD DVD
a. Nine Inch Nails Live: Beside You in Time True HD
b. Eagles Farewell Tour I LPCM

Most of the blurays passed thru my hands, but keep only the refrence quality ones.

Impressed

I am more into EDM. So maybe i will do the same like you do and get blue-ray discs of huge trance festivals happening all over Europe

Now PS3 decodes DTS-HD MA onboard, so if you have a AVR that can accept LPCM over HDMI, you should be fine.

.....and the bonus is a gaming console

SACDs and DVD-Audios ! The dynamics improvement because the SACD can use high bitrate audio which naturally allows for more headroom.A normal CD is also limited to a certain frequency range that corresponds to the frequencies we humans can actually hear.
In SACD frequency range over 20khz.Why we need this ?, especially when most humans can barely hear anything up to 18khz... some says that since real instruments produce frequencies well over 20khz, this would be more true to the source and also humans could percept those frequencies, just not hear them (much like very low bass, which is another story).

This doesn't really make any sense to me.
Mostof the CD's today do not even extend to the limitation of the media. Modern recordings are shitty and don't even need the CD quality and additional dynamic headroom because, well, they're compressed to anyways.
Technically, SACDs and DVD-As use 24bit/96khz. Imagine the 96khz to be the resolution of the signal. By theory, you need double the amount khz of the signal to reproduce. let's say your music can go up to 20khz in frequency. You would need at least 40khz resolution to reproduce the tone properly. The CD has a resolution of 44.1khz and this is sufficient.
24bit defines the dynamic range or just the amount of free headroom that is available to a signal. Everything is recorded to 24 bit today. So this is one advantage over the CD, which is 16bit because the "downsampling" to 16bit might have influence on the sound. This is not in any way proven and should not be substantial. But, technically, it is possible to record something that actually uses the whole 16bit of dynamics of the CD. In fact, when recording this happens a lot. Then again, once recorded the signal is predictable and can fit easily on a CD. Let's just say the difference is marginal.

(ref :Speakerguide - SH/SC Wiki)