Good audio bitrate for movie?

1080 kbits of course

>>59101733
>I'm a stickler for muh quality
No, you're a stickler for placebo. AC-3 is lossy, it doesn't fucking matter as long as it's not some 96kbps shit

>>59101784
even on a TV with decent speakers? there is no noticeable difference between 384 vs. 640?

>>59101859
Do an abx test to be sure, but no, not really

>>59101911
another question, what is the consensus on h.265? I'm seeing a FLAC audio version with H.265 at only 5GB. Previous version was around the same size. Is h.265 really capable of such compression with minimal quality loss?

>>59101970
also, the h265 version is only 8-bit as opposed to the previous one which was 10-bit. so id be losing some color quality

>>59101970
>>59101986
the quality isn't any different, unless you're machine can't keep up and you might get skips and slowdown if you're using an older PC (don't ask me specific processors, I don't fucking know)

I'd prefer the 10bit to the 8bit h.265, even if your computer can manage and even if you don't have a 10bit monitor.

>>59101733
>.I see an otherwise good torrent at "5.1ch AC-3 @ 384 Kbps".
odds are that's the audio that came with the movie passed through the transcoder,

Unless the movie came with DTS, DTS-MA, Dobly TruHD, or some other format, that's the best you're going to get

just download a remux

>>59101733
passthrough, re-encode like a retard