https://www.mediafire.com/download/3oay95rwi0z0vnf

Covers
https://mega.nz/#F!Wt8GXJxI!QI6YlyCBSc0BFHSP4ydJhQ
33

Thumbs up? Thanks in advance if you do.

A little more info, ok?

Many thanks ! But I agreed Calidoran for more info ! What is the source ? Why in dts ? Is it really better ?

Hi,
A music file upconverted to DTS or AC3 seems to have a cleaner sound, more dynamic and better volume at lower levels. A good sound system really shows the limitations of an MP3 320 so to trick it out converting it proved worth the time and effort. DTS doubles the size of the file so storage can be an issue.
I adopt a minimalistic approach to posting. You don't need a password, you don't have to kma for a link. The covers are available on a separate posting tersley named Ennio Morricone. So, composer, title and link. If it's not worth speculating 2 minutes of your time to check it out then pass it by and look for something else. Sharing is a fun pastime and leads to much joy. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

thank you

Thanks for sharing.

Hi,
A music file upconverted to DTS or AC3 seems to have a cleaner sound, more dynamic and better volume at lower levels. A good sound system really shows the limitations of an MP3 320 so to trick it out converting it proved worth the time and effort.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can't see how this is possible. Upconverting never makes a sound file sound *better*. Not to mention, DTS and AC3 are lossy formats, so it's never upconverting. Even if you're converting to a higher sample rate, for example 44.1kHz to 48kHz (which, again, never improves the sound quality), converting an MP3 to a DTS is simply a lossy-to-lossy conversion, which destroys audio data. And if you're converting lossless (WAV, FLAC) to DTS, again, you're not gaining anything, because it's lossless-to-lossy.

If you don't believe me, compare the spectograms of your files before and after conversion using Audacity. DTS and AC3 don't magically add more sonic frequencies to your files.