I feel like this is the best place to ask because fuck going

>standard in cinema
home cinema/entertainment is the keyword here
baseline ac3 dolby houses a shitty old ass codec comparable to 192kbit mp3 and the only benefit is that it can encode up to 6 channels for surround use, it's been useless since the early DVD age though, most DVD releases have 48/24 uncompressed pcm surround.
for the higher tier dolby formats and dts hd master audio: lossless compression is lossless. of course totally comparable to flac, but these kinds of formats can carry certain identification/subtitle/timecode/sync metadata and the containers can stack multiple multichannel tracks for different languages making the movie post workflow easier
of course completely pointless for music, especially in stereo

>>71267703
>192kbit mp3 and the only benefit is that it can encode up to 6 channels for surround use
I'm not some autistic audiophile but that sounds disgusting.
>most DVD releases have 48/24 uncompressed pcm surround.
I thought PCM was mainly an early Blu-Ray thing, even then most of it was compressed to an extent.
>of course completely pointless for music, especially in stereo
Yeah, aside from niches like live shows on Blu-Ray but I think a few albums were remastered in surround. King Crimson had their debut in 5.1, I believe.

>>71267484
in general, a higher bitrate is better and a higher bit depth is better
but unless you have really great speakers/headphones and good ears you probably wont notice much difference between anything above 320 kb/s

>>71267850
>in general, a higher bitrate is better and a higher bit depth is better
Isn't there diminishing returns for bitrate?

>>71267816
no, almost every double layer DVD had uncompressed pcm sound for at least the main language unless the movie was extremely long

>>71267484
DD is not the same thing as FLAC, its not a format