Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > General > Newbies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 3rd May 2010, 00:31   #1  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Merging DTS Channels

I know it's probably been answered so that's why I'm posting it in this section. I want to merge an LFE channel of one DTS file with the 5 channels of another one. What's the easiest way of going about that? Could some program exist for it possibly? I wouldn't even know how to do it the following way, but is there a way without demuxing all the individual channels and merging them back together? That would certainly be preferred. Thanks guys

Last edited by Ditto666; 3rd May 2010 at 07:46. Reason: Grammar
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2010, 02:05   #2  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,408
Hi there.

SFAIK,

between "demuxing all the individual channels"

and "merging them back together",

one cannot avoid re-encoding, unfortunately.

In theory at least, it should be possible to convert (losslessly) a multichannel DTS into a set of mono DTS files — and vice-versa —, but again, AFAIK, there are no free tools (nor commercial ones BTW) capable of the task. Sadly, even DTS, Inc. themselves have NEVER released a full-featured (specs-wise) DTS encoder...

Last edited by Midzuki; 3rd May 2010 at 02:06. Reason: grammar
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2010, 07:41   #3  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
Hi there.

SFAIK,

between "demuxing all the individual channels"

and "merging them back together",

one cannot avoid re-encoding, unfortunately.

In theory at least, it should be possible to convert (losslessly) a multichannel DTS into a set of mono DTS files — and vice-versa —, but again, AFAIK, there are no free tools (nor commercial ones BTW) capable of the task. Sadly, even DTS, Inc. themselves have NEVER released a full-featured (specs-wise) DTS encoder...
Wait... It's really impossible to do this?! That's simply insane! Even demuxing the individual channels and muxing them back together, from what I understand, you're saying even that would require some level of re-encoding! Not to question the information but now I'm really curious if anybody has ever found a way.

I understand how there can't be an official way of doing it, but since there is nothing holding the channels together (unless there's some purposely added encrypting data doing so), it's way too surprising that not a single programmer has been able to find a way to at least simply replace one specific channel/add one, if the LFE channel doesn't exist for instance... It seems like it would be simple. I'm trying to really think, but I can't see what could be in the way of making that possible.

Last edited by Ditto666; 3rd May 2010 at 07:45. Reason: Grammar
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd May 2010, 13:29   #4  |  Link
nifedipin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4
lfe and dts

@SFAIK

Actually you can ad lfe to a dts file...almost "on the fly".The resulting file will be a multichannel wave[not dts].
Do some research in foobar with channel mixer dsp plugin and dts decoder plugin.
First:set the channel mixer dsp plugin:
-bypass upmixing
-ckeck--use lfe--
-check-create lfe from all 5 channels-
-uncheck...or check[do some experiments here]--redirect lfe--
-drag channel mixer to the left window[in dsp manager] to activate it.
Open the dts file in foobar.
Right click the file--convert to--wave--check--use dsp--hit convert.That's it!
You'll get a 5.1 multichannel uncompressed wave--fully enjoyable on your surround pc.
If you want your dts:demux the multichannel wave in tranzgui,then re-encode to dts in minnetonka's surcode cd dvd pro.

Alternatively do some research in nero trax.

Enjoy!
M
nifedipin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 01:51   #5  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nifedipin View Post
@SFAIK

Actually you can ad lfe to a dts file...almost "on the fly".The resulting file will be a multichannel wave[not dts].
Do some research in foobar with channel mixer dsp plugin and dts decoder plugin.
First:set the channel mixer dsp plugin:
-bypass upmixing
-ckeck--use lfe--
-check-create lfe from all 5 channels-
-uncheck...or check[do some experiments here]--redirect lfe--
-drag channel mixer to the left window[in dsp manager] to activate it.
Open the dts file in foobar.
Right click the file--convert to--wave--check--use dsp--hit convert.That's it!
You'll get a 5.1 multichannel uncompressed wave--fully enjoyable on your surround pc.
If you want your dts:demux the multichannel wave in tranzgui,then re-encode to dts in minnetonka's surcode cd dvd pro.

Alternatively do some research in nero trax.

Enjoy!
M
Hmm... Well, unfortunately, either way requires either re-encoding back to DTS or leaving it uncompressed. I want to do this with quite the few files and I wouldn't like to store those huge files instead of the DTS tracks. Thanks though - that seems doable but just not exactly what I'm looking for. I was hoping for the end result to be the same exact untouched channels from two separate sources. Otherwise, it really isn't worth it if you think about it...
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 03:18   #6  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
I understand how there can't be an official way of doing it, but since there is nothing holding the channels together (unless there's some purposely added encrypting data doing so), it's way too surprising that not a single programmer has been able to find a way to at least simply replace one specific channel/add one, if the LFE channel doesn't exist for instance... It seems like it would be simple. I'm trying to really think, but I can't see what could be in the way of making that possible.
I guess, most of the "highly-skilled programmers" don't feel like playing around with the DTS compression, not only because *DTS, Inc* themselves are not "open-source friendly" (to say the least), but also because the so-called "Coherent Acoustics" is terribly inefficient. Just for comparison purposes, stereo MP3 reaches "transparency" at 256kbps, and MP2 does the same at 320kbps, whereas stereo DTS needs "only" 576kbps for "getting there"...

Last edited by Midzuki; 4th May 2010 at 22:41. Reason: grammar
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 05:17   #7  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
I guess, most of the "highly-skilled programmers" don't feel like playing around with the DTS compression, not only because *DTS, Inc* themselves is not "open-source friendly" (to say the least), but also because the so-called "Coherent Acoustics" is terribly inefficient. Just for comparison purposes, stereo MP3 reaches "transparency" at 256kbps, and MP2 does the same at 320kbps, whereas stereo DTS needs "only" 576kbps for "getting there"...
Well regardless, 96kHz, 24-bit 1500KBps 5.1ch DTS tracks sound incredibly superior to MP3, especially if it's a good studio mastering. Yes, MP3s are capable of better compression, but nevertheless, they are more lossy. What you don't seem to be taking into account is that these DTS files have 3 times as many channels, so to be fair, you'd need to multiply those bitrate values of MP3 and MP2 by 3... Even getting it down to the bare bones though, DTS has a way more dynamic sound if handled equally. I love it. Though there are ways to screw it up, the DTS format itself wouldn't be to blame.

With compression only a small factor, what do you believe to be the most superior format then?

Last edited by Ditto666; 4th May 2010 at 05:22.
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 05:24   #8  |  Link
Audionut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
What you don't seem to be taking into account is that these DTS files have 3 times as many channels, so to be fair, you'd need to multiply those bitrate values of MP3 and MP2 by 3...
Re-read Midzuki's post. He talks about stereo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
With compression only a small factor, what do you believe to be the most superior format then?
Depends on bitrate. I've always preferred ac3 over dts. dts has more wow factor, but I've always preferred ac3 more natural sound.
__________________
http://www.7-zip.org/

Last edited by Audionut; 4th May 2010 at 05:27.
Audionut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 05:56   #9  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
What you don't seem to be taking into account is that these DTS files have 3 times as many channels, so to be fair, you'd need to multiply those bitrate values of MP3 and MP2 by 3...
Your thinking has been multiplied by "-1" or something.

As I had said,

2-channel MP3 @ 256kbps ~= 2-channel DTS @ 576kbps,

so,

5-channel DTS @ 1440kbps ~= 5-channel MP3 @ 640kbps

Also, it seems you believe
"there cannot exist 2-channel-only DTS streams below 754kbps".

Quote:
With compression only a small factor, what do you believe to be the most superior format then?
I only know DTS surely «cannot be the best».

Last edited by Midzuki; 4th May 2010 at 06:01. Reason: typo
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 06:18   #10  |  Link
thewebchat
Advanced Blogging
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 483
Considering that DTS doesn't have channel coupling, it would be a hard stretch to call it a "superior" technology. In my opinion, I can't see any reason to use anything besides AAC for lossy audio (all lossless codecs are the same, obviously).
thewebchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 08:33   #11  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
Re-read Midzuki's post. He talks about stereo.



Depends on bitrate. I've always preferred ac3 over dts. dts has more wow factor, but I've always preferred ac3 more natural sound.
That sounds about right. And yeah, just realized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
Your thinking has been multiplied by "-1" or something.

As I had said,

2-channel MP3 @ 256kbps ~= 2-channel DTS @ 576kbps,

so,

5-channel DTS @ 1440kbps ~= 5-channel MP3 @ 640kbps

Also, it seems you believe
"there cannot exist 2-channel-only DTS streams below 754kbps".



I only know DTS surely «cannot be the best».
But what else is there? AC3 Is the only competition I see though I don't prefer it. I realize there could be stereo DTS though I've just never seen it. No matter what source I've seen, it has always been about the same bitrate with 5.1 channels...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewebchat View Post
Considering that DTS doesn't have channel coupling, it would be a hard stretch to call it a "superior" technology. In my opinion, I can't see any reason to use anything besides AAC for lossy audio (all lossless codecs are the same, obviously).
Now I see why one of the rules is not to ask for opinion >.< Each person said something different. I've heard people say that it's stupid to use AAC. With my experience, I'd agree, but I also see why some what say what you did.


Alright, let's put it this way... In terms of CLARITY, DTS is the most superior. In terms of how it sounds, that's arguable... Anyway, this is going off topic. I'm essentially sitting here with two version of a DTS album, one with retarded "surround" mixing but with good bass, and one with decent surround but without an LFE channel. Doesn't seem to be a way to satisfy the query so I'm not really sure what next...

Last edited by Ditto666; 4th May 2010 at 08:36.
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 10:17   #12  |  Link
Audionut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,254
If your playing off a computer, I'd decode to wav, fix your channels and encode to flac lossless. The size might even be a little smaller than dts depending on the content.
__________________
http://www.7-zip.org/
Audionut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 13:07   #13  |  Link
thewebchat
Advanced Blogging
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
Alright, let's put it this way... In terms of CLARITY, DTS is the most superior. In terms of how it sounds, that's arguable... [other blog stuff]
???
"In terms of SPEED, a Model T is the most superior, but in terms of HOW FAST IT IS, that's arguable..."
thewebchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 14:29   #14  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,408
fact 1)

many ppl SAY, ac-3 sounds "more faithful to" the original uncompressed source;

fact 2)

many ppl SAY,
DTS sounds... <-- ( place your preferred superlative here )

my initial conclusion)

The "C.A." compression introduces some kind of
"pleasing artifacts",
much in the same way as the vacuum-tube amplifiers
usually generate an output which is considered "superior" by
certain self-entitled "audiophiles".

Just my 1.99 euros.
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2010, 20:15   #15  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
If your playing off a computer, I'd decode to wav, fix your channels and encode to flac lossless. The size might even be a little smaller than dts depending on the content.
That would be very surprising to me if FLAC would be a smaller size, or even relatively similar. Plus, I can't help but really feel that it won't sound any bit the same. With DTS, the receiver would be doing all of the decoding directly. Even when I play it as a PCM signal, it ALREADY sounds different (worse).

Aside from all that though, I simply don't like FLAC. I always strongly disliked it for every reason possible. It could simply partially be due to the placebo effect, but still...
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewebchat View Post
???
"In terms of SPEED, a Model T is the most superior, but in terms of HOW FAST IT IS, that's arguable..."
Well, those are two different things. It's not like "speed" vs. "how fast it is"... Imagine somebody's voice. It can sound very clearly and powerfully replicated. On the other hand, it can sound more muffled but more like the way the voice actually sounds of the singer.

I would make the analysis that DTS is a clearer sound while AC3 sounds like something of a lower bitrate (more muffled), relatively, while maintaining a more accurate representation of how whatever it was sounded like. Why I prefer DTS is because clarity feels more realistic over accuracy to me. It makes me feel more like I'm there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
fact 1)

many ppl SAY, ac-3 sounds "more faithful to" the original uncompressed source;

fact 2)

many ppl SAY,
DTS sounds... <-- ( place your preferred superlative here )

my initial conclusion)

The "C.A." compression introduces some kind of
"pleasing artifacts",
much in the same way as the vacuum-tube amplifiers
usually generate an output which is considered "superior" by
certain self-entitled "audiophiles".

Just my 1.99 euros.
See comment above...

I don't disagree about AC3. I don't think your take on DTS is too accurate.


Thanks guys for trying to help, but it seems there's no way around DTS as the final outcome, not re-encoded. Aside from the size, even uncompressed wouldn't really do considering a different signal is being fed to the receiver which then uses a different decoding algorithm.

Last edited by Ditto666; 4th May 2010 at 20:19.
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 01:31   #16  |  Link
Audionut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
That would be very surprising to me if FLAC would be a smaller size, or even relatively similar. Plus, I can't help but really feel that it won't sound any bit the same. With DTS, the receiver would be doing all of the decoding directly. Even when I play it as a PCM signal, it ALREADY sounds different (worse).
1. I wouldn't have said it can be smaller if it can't.
2. FLAC is lossless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
3. If you think a correctly decoded DTS to PCM file sounds worse, you're kidding yourself.

Time to leave this thread before I get a strike for rule 4.
__________________
http://www.7-zip.org/
Audionut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 21:00   #17  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audionut View Post
1. I wouldn't have said it can be smaller if it can't.
2. FLAC is lossless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression
3. If you think a correctly decoded DTS to PCM file sounds worse, you're kidding yourself.

Time to leave this thread before I get a strike for rule 4.
Well that's screwed up. It's not like I even gave my opinion about the whole DTS vs. PCM thing. That's how the receiver works. It shouldn't be any different and that's why it frustrates me, but the fact of the matter is that it happens.

I know what lossless means! FLAC is actually "lossless", as in, not fully. It's not the same as uncompressed but yeah, almost. Either way, I just don't like FLAC.

It has to be DTS, otherwise, it changes the mixture of the sound. It's not that I'm being stubborn here - it just sorta ruins the point. It's supposed to sound better - not worse in any way. Plus, it just messes up the DTS as a collection.. If not merging into one file, maybe there's something that can take two files and play them at the same time. That way, I can simply rip the LFE channel and play it simultaneously. Or maybe there's some kind of container that can hold the two together and then play them, no?

Last edited by Ditto666; 5th May 2010 at 21:04.
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 21:07   #18  |  Link
Midzuki
Unavailable
 
Midzuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offline
Posts: 1,408
Are your ears "100% sure" that re-encoding to a new DTS file is not an acceptable option?

Last edited by Midzuki; 5th May 2010 at 21:08. Reason: typo
Midzuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2010, 21:13   #19  |  Link
Ditto666
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midzuki View Post
Are your ears "100% sure" that re-encoding to a new DTS file is not an acceptable option?
Well, I've never done that, but think about it.. Imagine encoding something to MP3, and then re-encoding to MP3 again... I'm sure it would be noticeable and either way, I'd have the knowledge that it's worse >.< You mentioned I think to re-encode to a stereo DTS file at some point 0.0; I mentioned earlier that the reason I wanted to do this was because the surround mixture in the track with the LFE channel is bad, so using PLIIx would solve the issue? Plus, I hate that as well, lol. Makes the music sound so fake XD What I mentioned in the previous post must exist. There doesn't need to be a direct way to merge the channels into one DTS file. It could instead be something like I mentioned there.

Last edited by Ditto666; 5th May 2010 at 21:15.
Ditto666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2010, 00:37   #20  |  Link
Audionut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
Well that's screwed up. It's not like I even gave my opinion about the whole DTS vs. PCM thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
Even when I play it as a PCM signal, it ALREADY sounds different (worse).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
I know what lossless means! FLAC is actually "lossless", as in, not fully. It's not the same as uncompressed but yeah, almost.
Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data.

Exact: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exact
Quote:
Strictly accurate or correct.
Precise, as opposed to approximate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ditto666 View Post
It has to be DTS
Whatever advertising DTS is doing in your area is apparently working very well.
__________________
http://www.7-zip.org/
Audionut is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.