[tebasuna51]

Originally Posted by gamete

Is it better ac3 or eac3 ?

Remember forum rule 12:

Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area.

Like jdobbs say, in order to BD rebuild, the support of EAC3 is optional in BD players then in this area select AC3 can be the best option.

Out of BD rebuild there are other opinions:

1) About more channels than max 5.1 supported by AC3:

Originally Posted by jdobbs

If you need 7.1 for some reason, then maybe... but since a sound mixed on both the front and rear channels of a 5.1 source gives the appearance of a side channel -- it's also debatable as to whether 7.1 is anything more than a marketing gimmick.

It is my opinion: for surround 2D is more than enough 5.1 channels, 7.1 is usseless.

2) About bitrate I agree with jdobbs when say:

Originally Posted by jdobbs

Since Dolby's double blind tests show that a 5.1 AC3 stream encoded at 640Kbs is indistiguishable from an uncompressed source (to the human ear) -- it is debatable whether EAC3's higher bitrates actually provide any useful value

But, in a general way of course, EAC3 is better than AC3 because:

1) Support not only more channels than AC3 but also surround 3D with Atmos, not allowed for AC3.

2) The encoder is more efficient and we can obtain more quality with less bitrate, like we can see in a multichannel test.

The DD+ (EAC3) 448 Kb/s is comparable to DTS 1500 like AC3 640

Then, if device player support all EAC3 features, EAC3 is better.