TrueHD encoding

[mindbomb]

I was wondering about this.

Is the only way to create dolby truehd audio to use the dolby media encoder software on mac osx?

Also, is meridian lossless packaging synonymous with dolby truehd?

If so, could you use something like surcode mlp encoder instead of dolby media encoder?

Although I do realize surcode is limited to 6 channels max.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I'm not 100% on this, but I do think that the Dolby software is the only way to encode TrueHD.

It's correct that TrueHD uses MLP, but it's much different than the implementation for DVD Audio. Surcode would be a suitable tool for encoding DVD Audio, but not TrueHD, since TrueHD is a much more complex format than DVD Audio.

You could use MLP = MPEG-2 as an analogy to better understand this. The old CCE encoder can encode MPEG-2 but only in SD, just like your Surcode app can encode MLP, but only for DVD-A. If you want to encode HD MPEG-2, you need a different tool (like HC or ffmpeg), and for TrueHD you also need a different tool (like Dolby Media Producer).

Derek

[mindbomb]

dolby media encoder came out in 2005 fwir.

is it like in the pharmaceutical industry, where you have to wait 10 years for the patents to run out?
will we see an alternative in 2015?

[amtm]

Patents aren't really the issue especially for the number of people outside of the US (such as most of the ffmpeg and/or libav developers) but the fact that the format is pretty complex and most of it is kept hidden as trade secret. AC-3 and E-AC3 probably both still fall under patents and DTS still falls under patents but there are open source and alternative encoders for them. I think the biggest issue why you see no alternative commercial encoders for TrueHD is that from what I heard licensing fees are much steeper than DTS-HD and if you notice almost no one is using TrueHD on Blu-Ray so there is also probably not enough demand for another encoder. For the open source side, it's probably just that no one wants to spend the time to reverse engineer an encoder since unlike DTS(-HD), AC-3 and E-AC3 there are no open specs for the format.

[Ghitulescu]

is it like in the pharmaceutical industry, where you have to wait 10 years for the patents to run out?
will we see an alternative in 2015?

Try 20, so 2025 :)

Maybe you try to move in Europe, where no software patents exists ;), the TVs understand NTSC, too, but the cost of living is much higher.
Don't forget that the copyright seems to last forever - 1 day, and still you're not sure which parts are covered by which protected matter and when all interesting parts would expire (it's anyway too late, meanwhile Dolby could have changed 50x the technology).

[amtm]

Copyrights aren't really an issue unless you're attempting to copy their code. Even still, I would imagine the biggest issue is the licensing fees, lack of use of the format and the fact that for an open source encoder no one wants to put in the time to reverse engineer it. It was the same reason no one wanted to do DTS-HD decoding in ffmpeg/libav because the format was practically undocumented until the updated ETSI spec from a couple of month back. If TrueHD had something like an ETSI spec you'd probably see more interest in implementing an encoder.

[Ghitulescu]

Well, I've heard of lots of people that said we don't care, copyright is only this but not that. AFAIK no one dared however to challenge the letter of an attorney on this matter, not to go before trial. Elastic principles I would say ;)

[amtm]

Well, I've heard of lots of people that said we don't care, copyright is only this but not that. AFAIK no one dared however to challenge the letter of an attorney on this matter, not to go before trial. Elastic principles I would say ;)

As long as the encoder is done using an above-the-board, clean room design there is no copyright issue. This has much precedent to back it up. In Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation it was ruled that even some amount of copying is permitted under certain circumstances.

[Ghitulescu]

Yes, a corporation against another, or 3 500$-an-hour attorneys versus other 3 500$-an-hour ones.

Try now to imagine 3 500$-an-hour attorneys against one 500$-a-week worker with an attorney appointed by the office. :) Justice is measured in money, like poker.

[amtm]

Yes, a corporation against another, or 3 500$-an-hour attorneys versus other 3 500$-an-hour ones.

Try now to imagine 3 500$-an-hour attorneys against one 500$-a-week worker with an attorney appointed by the office. :) Justice is measured in money, like poker.

EFF will take up your case and get it easily dismissed using the copious amounts of case law precedent. If they can't they have incompetent lawyers.

[Ghitulescu]

The case law helps only if the law does not change and leaves grey zones, open to interpretations. The case law is not a law, it's just a helping hand, a record of decisions taken in similar cases, thus a thinking shortcut for the judge - should the case be the extremely similar.

In this case the law (and law equivalents) changed and will change. The case law needs to be build up from scratches.

I'll stop here because it developed into an off-topic issue.

[amtm]

The case law helps only if the law does not change and leaves grey zones, open to interpretations. The case law is not a law, it's just a helping hand, a record of decisions taken in similar cases, thus a thinking shortcut for the judge - should the case be the extremely similar.

In this case the law (and law equivalents) changed and will change. The case law needs to be build up from scratches.

I'll stop here because it developed into an off-topic issue.

The law hasn't changed with respect to clean room design. So the precedent is still valid.

[hello_hello]

Well, I've heard of lots of people that said we don't care, copyright is only this but not that. AFAIK no one dared however to challenge the letter of an attorney on this matter, not to go before trial. Elastic principles I would say

Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v._Zamos)


Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars)

[Ghitulescu]

Nice examples, indeed. Respect.

These were not copyright infringements, and still they had to fight hard (Vernon lost his revenues for 1 month). In Germany the same Microsoft tried to stop the selling of unopened, new software, that were previously distributed as OEM. Microsoft lost. It happened 2-3 years before Zamos.

[rik1138]

I was wondering about this.

Is the only way to create dolby truehd audio to use the dolby media encoder software on mac osx?

Also, is meridian lossless packaging synonymous with dolby truehd?

If so, could you use something like surcode mlp encoder instead of dolby media encoder?

Although I do realize surcode is limited to 6 channels max.

Dolby has a PC-based encoder that will make TrueHD, but I don't know if it's something they will offer to customers. It was originally developed on PC, and it is definitely the Meridian encoder (still has their logo on it when you run the encoder... :cool: ) Still not sure why the switched to Mac only...

You can always ask about it. It's still a fairly slow encoder though.

[mindbomb]

so it is something i have to call up to ask about or go to a dealer?

[rik1138]

You'd probably have to contact Dolby directly, or maybe a dealer... Tell them you want to use their format on Blu-ray releases, but using Mac computers isn't an option (since your (and everyone elses) entire Blu-ray work flow is PC based...)

The only truly legitimate excuse for getting it has been fixed in the latest versions of the Dolby Encoder (doing seamless branching, you couldn't encode TrueHD for seamless branching with the early versions of the software, once of the main reasons so many studios left it behind in favor of DTS). They solved that now, so I don't even know if the PC version is available at all...

If you have any Meridian MLP encoder, see if there's a 'Blu-ray' option in it... That's what seems to have been added to the PC version I used... Otherwise it looked pretty much like a piece of Meridian software, not Dolby. (It wouldn't even do AC3, I had to encode the core AC3 streams with a different encoder... It just made the MLP file.)

[kolak]

There is no other software than Dolby Media Producer (MAC only) to create BD compliant TrueHD files. TrueHD is based on MLP, but not exactly the same- at least in terms of headers etc, which is important for use on BD.

There is Dolby Media Producer SE (same as full one, just works on single PC), which is now 995$.
I would also not bothered with TrueHD- DTS-MA became a standard on BD and I would rather use this.

[rik1138]

There is no other software than Dolby Media Producer (MAC only) to create BD compliant TrueHD files. TrueHD is based on MLP, but not exactly the same- at least in terms of headers etc, which is important for use on BD.

_Dolby_ has a PC version of the software that will encode blu-ray compliant TrueHD files. I've used it, on discs that are currently available in stores. I had a specific reason for needing a version other than Dolby Media Producer (the seamless branching problem), and they produced the PC version for me.

But it's not something they publicly develop or offer, and I'm not sure if you can still talk them into loaning it out... But it does exist. I still can't figure out why they don't offer it, if for no other reason than it provides PC people with the option of using their codec...

For some reason, I just don't think they care about the Blu-ray market. They make money from licensing the codec to hardward manufacturers (there's no licensing fee for using it on a disc). Since all Blu-ray players _have_ to support TrueHD, they get their licensing money whether the codec is in use by anyone or not... So why bother spending more money on the software?

I would also not bothered with TrueHD- DTS-MA became a standard on BD and I would rather use this.

Technically, both are the 'standard' on BD, it's just one became more popular since the software is cheaper, PC based, infinitely faster and has always worked with seamless branching titles...

But I will agree, if you can talk your client into DTS-HD MA instead, just do that. You will save yourself a lot of headache, especially if you don't have Macs around.

[kolak]

Maybe Dolby has PC version, but it's not a retail product- so for me it does not exists :)

Dolby was silly releasing MAC version, where all BD tools are PC based. As you said- they don't care about BD authoring- it would not make huge profit anyway.
DTS-MA software was superior from first day, cheaper, faster and PC based. It all went natural way and now is over- 95% current discs have DTS-MA.

Neither TrueHD nor DTS-MA or mandatory on BD, but they have both very good support now anyway.

[neil wilkes]

It depends on what your BD authoring tool will accept, I think.
DoStudio seems to be looking for an AC3 stream and an MLP Lossless stream.
The AC3 stream will be "hidden" and accessed if the player cannot decode the 5.1 True HD stream (it will still light up the "true HD" icon though).
Dolby True HD is not actually mandatory for any BD player to decode in anything other than the core stream, as is also the case for DTS-HD (there the mandatory section is again the substream core audio) and if you want to guarantee lossless 5.1 playback on any BD, you should use LPCM as this is the only mandatory 5.1 stream type there is.

Getting back on topic.
The only difference between the Dolby True HD version of MLP Lossless and the DVD-A version is in the number of channels supported and the maximum sample rate.
When Meridian developed MLP Lossless, it was always capable of up to 14 channels at up to 192kHz sample rate.
If your stream is 24/96 5.1 or less, the SurCode version we use for DVD-A should do the job as long as there is an equal AC3 substream.
I will check this in the DoStudio application when we build our next title in a month or so, but I feel sure it will multiplex correctly.