[WallyB (Unverified) Posted Jan 3rd 2008 2:59PM]

Well, I guess I'm not as far behind the crowd as I thought (being Toslink only). I have HD DVD and Blu-Ray, but I'm getting along just fine with my circa 2000 Sony STR-DA333ES receiver. 5.1 DD & DTS is just fine for me. The jump from SD to HD is worth, to me, a lot more investment than 5.1 to 7.1 lossless.

[John B (Unverified) Posted Jan 3rd 2008 3:26PM]

Right behind you one that one. With a family of kids, the oldest of which is only 7 and the newest only 10 months, I can't really be blasting my audio system anyway. As far as I'm concerned my DD 5.1/DTS provides all of the sounds quality that I need to enjoy a movie. I'd much rather put the extra money from getting a less expensive receiver into a bigger screen and more HD media.

Ben, your elitism is blatantly obvious here, particularly the belief that because a codec is old and "only" 1.5 Mb that isn't somehow unacceptable. Monaural or low-bitrate DD/DTS is unacceptable, but that's all based on how the disc is mastered and encoded. There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with the technology itself. Just because "regular" DD/DTS is dated doesn't mean that it has to be scorned, but that's exactly what you're implying.

So, if that means that I'm stuck in 1999, so be it. I'm content with that. It sure as hell beats the days when we didn't even have surround sound. Hell, being stuck in 1999 just gives me an excuse to say that I'm actually 29 years old. :P

[SAMe (Unverified) Posted Jan 3rd 2008 3:57PM]

WallyB,

Its the jump from 5.1 to 5.1 Loseless or compressed lossless that will knock your socks off. Huge difference my man, huge difference.

[locke6854 (Unverified) Posted Jan 4th 2008 3:35AM]

i have some nice klipsch reference and i too felt dts/dd was perfect. But if your speakers are good enough, you'll notice. I was skeptical until i heard uncompressed sound on a friend's setup with equally nice speakers.

Not everyone can, which is fine. And if you have a $200 theater-in-a-box, you'll do ok without it.