UsEac3to: a different GUI for eac3to

[tebasuna51]

With this GUI you need know and type the eac3to parameters, but there are some help for you.

Was made this GUI for me and make more easy test eac3to, if you want use it you can try, also you can modify the source (free Autoit3).

Link: UsEac3to04.7z (http://www.sendspace.com/file/2xji2e)

ScreenShot:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/359/useac3to03.png

[setarip_old]

Hi!

It looks like a very interesting concept - however, the link you've provided fails...

[b66pak]

thanks...
_

[Elektra999]

Thanks Tebasuna51 for the upgrade ;)

[tebasuna51]

... however, the link you've provided fails...

Try this other (http://www.savefile.com/files/2034910), or say me a site to upload.

[setarip_old]

That worked a treat!

Thank you very much ;>}

[~bT~]

thanks tebasuna51! always appreciate a new gui for eac3to :)

edit: a few bugs maybe?

when a default output folder is selected, it should be set to that when gui starts.

is mp3 automatically set to downmix to stereo? i think not..

also, maybe u can add -progress numbers by default?

[tebasuna51]

when a default output folder is selected, it should be set to that when gui starts.
No, the folder value remain but the default when start the GUI for 'Output Folder' is 'Same as input'

is mp3 automatically set to downmix to stereo? i think not..
Remember all parameters are samples and you must verify, delete or change. Of course if the source is multichannel you must include a -down2 parameter

also, maybe u can add -progress numbers by default?
I'm not interested. Feel free to change this or other thing, you have the source code and Autoit3 is free and very easy.

[ACrowley]

THX :) Very nice GUI...

[tebasuna51]

New version 0.3
- Chapters in TXT files can be speedud/slowdown like the subtitles
- The button free used to link DelayCut

[ACrowley]

Strange

Your Gui use around 20& Cpu Load "without" any eac3to processing ?

The CPU Load goes down to ~0 as soon a eac3to process is running.

I use Vista x64 SP1

[tebasuna51]

Your Gui use around 20& Cpu Load "without" any eac3to processing ?

The CPU Load goes down to ~0 as soon a eac3to process is running.

My fault, I'm inexpert in Autoit (not only).
Solved in new version 0.4 (first post)

...
when a default output folder is selected, it should be set to that when gui starts.

...

also, maybe u can add -progress numbers by default?
When select a output folder (distinct of the @ScriptDir, default when don't select a valid folder) the User Defined is selected now, and remain selected when GUI starts.

I added also the -progressnumbers parameter.

[ACrowley]

v0.4 2009-10-12 less CPU use

Thank you:)

[stiky]

so much easier to use than eac3to more GUI.

but how do i determine if i want say 768 bitrate or 1542 bitrate for DTS?

[tebasuna51]

but how do i determine if i want say 768 bitrate or 1542 bitrate for DTS?
There are many parameters than you must write in Command Line Parameters, the options offered are only samples, instead the -448 (typical for AC3 instead the default 640) you can write:
v1.09
...
* SurCode DVD DTS encoding automation added
* new options "-768" and "-1536" for DTS encoding

BTW, I don't know for what you need a encoder less efficient and compatible than AC3. If you need encode is better AC3 448 than DTS 768, and AC3 640 better than DTS 1536

[Ryu77]

BTW, I don't know for what you need a encoder less efficient and compatible than AC3. If you need encode is better AC3 448 than DTS 768, and AC3 640 better than DTS 1536

Are you saying that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s is better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/s?

[tebasuna51]

One more time:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3324-2007_tcm6-53801.pdf
http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

[neuron2]

Aren't you violating GPL by distributing binaries without source or links to source?

[tebasuna51]

Aren't you violating GPL by distributing binaries without source or links to source?
I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
In the Readme file there are all the links to the files I used.
And I think all of them have public source code.

But if you think is not enough, please explain me what can I do. Thanks.

[neuron2]

In the Readme file there are all the links to the files I used. Didn't see that. Sorry for the interruption. :stupid:

[Ryu77]

One more time:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3324-2007_tcm6-53801.pdf
http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

So what are you saying? Those articles don't compare Dolby 640 against DTS 1536. One did mention that they are both considered "excellent" in this bitrate range. Hardly a concise scale of performance. Back to the previous post...

BTW, I don't know for what you need a encoder less efficient and compatible than AC3. If you need encode is better AC3 448 than DTS 768, and AC3 640 better than DTS 1536

This statement says to me that you are implying that DTS is less efficient than Dolby Digital, and that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s is better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/s.

For my previous post, a simple yes or no answer would have suffice. I am extremely sorry to challenge you on this on your own thread as it seems like you put together a nice GUI...

However, there is no way that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s sounds better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/s. Unless you are using equipment that can't reproduce the differences. I can easily hear the difference every, single time.

Different codecs are obviously designed differently and some have sweet spots at different bitrates. If you were to say that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s performs better than DTS at 768 Kbit/s, this might indeed be possible. I just find the level of detail and clarity in DTS 1536, almost as good as it's lossless counterpart.

[tebasuna51]

This statement says to me that you are implying that DTS is less efficient than Dolby Digital, and that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s is better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/s.
Yes.
For my previous post, a simple yes or no answer would have suffice. I am extremely sorry to challenge you on this on your own thread as it seems like you put together a nice GUI...
Don't worry, is only a copy-paste. :)
However, there is no way that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s sounds better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/s. Unless you are using equipment that can't reproduce the differences. I can easily hear the difference every, single time.
I never say "sounds better".

The test is: listen the original uncompressed, the DTS encoded and the AC3 encoded.
Maybe for you the DTS sounds better than original uncompressed, but is not the question.

[shon3i]

there is no way that Dolby at 640 Kbit/s sounds better than DTS at 1536 Kbit/sHow hell no? like comparing simple algo (DTS) with some hevy efficient algo (AC3). Like comparing MPEG2 and MPEG4 and say that MPEG2 still better. AC3 @ 640kbps clearly produce higher sound quality than DTS @ 1536kbps, even AC3@448kbps can be comparable to DTS 1536kbps.
I proved to myself several times on different equipment, even now when I had access to the DTS-HD MA Encoding Suite, which mean i encode my samples with up to date DTS encoding tool.

[honai]

I guess he's refering to bass response with AC3 vs DTS, i.e. due to higher attenuation of low-level frequencies before encoding AC3 does not sound as "bass-rich" as DTS. This is especially true with on-the-fly AC3 (Dolby Digital Live) and DTS solutions on mainboards and soundcards. However, concerning overall faithfulness to the master I'd say AC3 is able to achieve much better replication than DTS, even when comparing 640kbps AC3 to 1536kbps DTS.

[tebasuna51]

I guess he's refering to bass response with AC3 vs DTS, i.e. due to higher attenuation of low-level frequencies before encoding AC3 does not sound as "bass-rich" as DTS.
This is especially true with on-the-fly AC3 (Dolby Digital Live) and DTS solutions on mainboards and soundcards.

Please, can you explain this. I don't understand...

[Ryu77]

I guess he's refering to bass response with AC3 vs DTS, i.e. due to higher attenuation of low-level frequencies before encoding AC3 does not sound as "bass-rich" as DTS.

This thread is going off topic, but no I wasn't only referring to bass response. I can actually hear finer details and more presence with DTS @ 1536 over Dolby @ 640. I can see that a few of you don't agree here which is fine but I can only go with what my ears tell me.

However, I have noticed bass heavy DTS tracks present on quite a few DVD's but for some reason this seems to be different on Blu-ray discs. Whether it is because most DVD's used 768 Kbit/s instead of 1536 Kbit/s or they used an older encoder, I am not sure.

How hell no? like comparing simple algo (DTS) with some hevy efficient algo (AC3). Like comparing MPEG2 and MPEG4 and say that MPEG2 still better. AC3 @ 640kbps clearly produce higher sound quality than DTS @ 1536kbps, even AC3@448kbps can be comparable to DTS 1536kbps.
I proved to myself several times on different equipment, even now when I had access to the DTS-HD MA Encoding Suite, which mean i encode my samples with up to date DTS encoding tool.

Comparing MPEG2 and MPEG4 (AVC) to Dolby and DTS is nowhere near a similar comparison. There has got to be at least a decade between MPEG2 and MPEG4 (AVC). Computing power and technology has had a quantum leap since then. I believe there was only about a year difference between the first commercial use of Dolby and DTS. I understand what you meant by this in terms of codec efficiency but I really don't think it's as clear cut as that.

Just out of curiousity, what sort of equipment are you comparing these on?

Looks like I am not alone on these thoughts...

http://www.audioholics.com/education/surround-sound/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/dolby-vs-dts.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Dolby-vs-DTS-Surround-Sound---Which-is-Better?&id=553768

As I mentioned above, all these reference the fact that you need the right equipment to hear the difference.

[tebasuna51]

@Ryu77
Your links don't say "DTS is better than AC3" only:
"you need a thoroughly refined audio playback setup to bring out that subtle difference in sound quality between these two formats."

And I agree with this. My audio equipment, or my human ears I don't know, can't distinguish between them.

For that I need trust in blind test with professional audio equipment.
My first link say: DTS 1500 is best than AC3 448 but very close
My second link (not sctrict blind test but also with professional audio equipment) conclude:
"The lossless, Dolby Digital Plus, and DTS-HD High Resolution compressed tracks were just a little more open and airy. I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable."

If most of the people can't distinguish between them (by audio equipment or human ears) and some experts prefer AC3 640 Kb/s over DTS 1500, for what we need spend bytes and select a format less compatible?

If you prefer DTS, use it, but I can't accept DTS is better than AC3 without probe it.

[raquete]

...but I can't accept DTS is better than AC3 without probe it.
me too!
edit: please, read the next post.
tebasuna,
first thank you for the new UsEac3to.

you know, i'm horrible in command lines.
can i ask how to 5.1 96/24 multichannel waves to flac without change sample rate, etc...only compression?
thanks.

[raquete]

now i know why "was so hard" to encode 5.1 96/24 multichannel waves to flac. lol
in my system(win2000) the down arrows on the right to select formats, parameters, etc are not working, i need to click until the output format(for example) be blue and use the arrows of the keybord to select the desired adjust.(flac, wave, waves,pcm,etc)
i can't say that is a GUI's problem, must be my old system. (?) :confused:

[tebasuna51]

I think Autoit ( http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/ ) support Win2000, but I can test it.
Try download the Autoit software and run the .au3 file instead the .exe.

[raquete]

I think Autoit ( http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/ ) support Win2000, but I can test it.
Try download the Autoit software and run the .au3 file instead the .exe. yes, Autoit works in win2k.
i download, run Autoit and open the UsEac3To.au3.
just the same, i can't chose options in "Track Input and Output format" and others (is "combo"? editing the file i saw "GUICtrlCreateCombo")
but works with the "trick" like i wrote before.

thanks for the link and hints.

[raquete]

tebasuna51,
i'm lost ...
how can i load lots of wavs with differents names from the same folder to encode as flac as the "+ Sources" buttom don't work in this case?

[tebasuna51]

The button '+ Sources' is only to concatenate sources like .VOB or .m2ts.
Isn't a batch process.

To convert to flac all the wav in a folder use this con2flac.bat file (put your correct path to eac3to) in the same folder and double click:
@echo off
for %%a in (*.wav) do "z:\path\eac3to.exe" "%%a" "%%a.flac"
pause

[raquete]

i did a copy of the lesson and is saved. :)

i never saw the word "do" in command lines before.

thanks so much.