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 > Audio encoding

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 4th September 2009, 13:14   #9301  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post
...
I archive all my movies as DTS 1.5mbps because I can't hear the difference above that even with DTS-MA or TrueHD. The DD (480,640) and DTS (768) are different story. I can hear those being softer when compared to HD audio but anything at 1.5mbps I can't hear it.
Is your choice.
But try encode a DTS-MA or TrueHD to AC3 640 Kb/s and compare with DTS 1.5Mb/s
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder.
tebasuna51 is offline  
Old 4th September 2009, 14:00   #9302  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
Is your choice.
But try encode a DTS-MA or TrueHD to AC3 640 Kb/s and compare with DTS 1.5Mb/s
i never could hear differences using wave sources in 24b/48k.
AC3 640K is really "the way to go" with short size and play in all standalones(i never saw standalones that can't play 640K but i can be wrong as i don't know all models(of course)).

observation: i only use AFTEN(WAVtoAC3Enc) for AC3.(is the same AC3 encoder used in EAC3to)
with others encoders used before i always found "issues" and was posted somewhere in this audio forum.
raquete is offline  
Old 4th September 2009, 16:30   #9303  |  Link
yesgrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
try encode a DTS-MA or TrueHD to AC3 640 Kb/s and compare with DTS 1.5Mb/s
Just for curiosity, do you think that AC3 640kbps sounds better than DTS 1.5Mbps?
yesgrey is offline  
Old 4th September 2009, 16:54   #9304  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
I just say: AC3 is more efficient than DTS.
I think I put this comparative 3 times in this thread:
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder.

Last edited by tebasuna51; 9th January 2011 at 16:35. Reason: new link
tebasuna51 is offline  
Old 4th September 2009, 20:59   #9305  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,988
I usually keep the AC3 track for compatibility purposes - and S/PDIF transport. At 448+kbps it's honestly "good enough" for me! If I must transcode something, it's always to Nero AAC-LC. The default Q=.5 sounds very good to me, and it's almost always smaller than 640kbps AC3.

I find the tasty high resolution / bitrate audio tracks tempting, but I'm rarely impressed by the difference. Once in a blue moon I'll FLAC a high-res track - but AAC is usually awesomely awesome for my tastes!

BTW - excellent link, tebasuna51! It was an interesting read, and further substantiates what folks have been saying on doom9 for years

~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :)

Last edited by Blue_MiSfit; 4th September 2009 at 21:14.
Blue_MiSfit is offline  
Old 4th September 2009, 22:28   #9306  |  Link
yesgrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
I think I put this comparative 3 times in this thread
Thanks! and sorry to make you repeat yourself...
yesgrey is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 09:08   #9307  |  Link
Bozster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
I just say: AC3 is more efficient than DTS.
I think I put this comparative 3 times in this thread:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_d...tcm6-53801.pdf
I read the comparison..however I can tell you that DTS 1.5mbps is virtually indistinguishable from DTS-MA or TrueHD even in controlled conditions and blind tests by experts.

DD/DD+ at 640kbps can indeed be better than DTS 768 but based on tests the only versions that provided maximum quality at lowest sizes without sacrificing quality were DTS 1.5mbps and DD+ 1.5bmps and above.

You can read about comparisons here:
http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM

They visited both DTS and Dolby labs.

They did say that even though DTS-MA, TrueHD and LPCM offered high bitrates and excellent quality, DD and DTS held very good even at 448/640/768 bitrates. Even though they could distinguish the audio difference with these lower bitrate codecs (they say it did sound a bit softer and flatter) they would be good enough to majority of people while DTS 1.5 and DD+ 1.5+ couldn't be spotted at all in blind tests against DTS-MA/TrueHD/LPCM.

This is why I chose to encode my movies with DTS 1.5mbps. I even have SurCode encoder where I encode TrueHD as DTS 1.5mbps.

Just some thoughts.
Bozster is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 09:12   #9308  |  Link
Bozster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
Is your choice.
But try encode a DTS-MA or TrueHD to AC3 640 Kb/s and compare with DTS 1.5Mb/s
So you think that I wouldn't hear a difference between AFTEN'ed TrueHD track as AC3 640 vs DTS 1.5?

I mean, I'd definitely do that because it would mean better compatibility with PS3 and xbox 360 which i have everywhere around my house as extenders but based on above articles I'm feeling more confident encoding as DTS 1.5 as I'm trusting these blind tests myself so I want to be sure.
Bozster is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 11:11   #9309  |  Link
yesgrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post
DD/DD+ at 640kbps can indeed be better than DTS 768 but based on tests the only versions that provided maximum quality at lowest sizes without sacrificing quality were DTS 1.5mbps and DD+ 1.5bmps and above.
That's not what I've read...
They weren't capable of hearing the difference between the lossless formats and DTS-HD High Resolution / DD+ 1.5mbps.
DTS-HD High Resolution is between 2.0 and 6.0mbps, and the core DTS are 768kbps (DVD) and 1536kbps(BR). They were capable of noticing a slightly difference between the core DTS's and the lossless, but between DD 640kbps and the lossless only one of them was able to tell the difference. So, that test also seems to indicate that DD 640kbps is equal or slightly better than DTS 1536kbps.
There was an important distinction in the two tests, though. In Dolby it was a blind test, but in DTS it wasn't. It's "easier" to spot a difference when you know that should be there...

Edit: Don't forget also that in Dolby it was only a 10s test, and by their description of the sound it did not seem to be a very hard to compress piece. A soundtrack is more than 1H30m, so maybe it's not such a good idea to relly your decision in a comparison made with only 10s of a soundtrack...

Last edited by yesgrey; 6th September 2009 at 11:19.
yesgrey is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 12:14   #9310  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post
...
You can read about comparisons here:
http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM
...
This is why I chose to encode my movies with DTS 1.5mbps. I even have SurCode encoder where I encode TrueHD as DTS 1.5mbps.
Maybe my english is so bad, but at the link you provide there aren't comparasion between DTS and AC3, only between uncompressed audio and AC3/DTS and the conclusion is:

"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."

I think he compare 448 Kb/s DD with 1.5 Mb/s DTS, and say 640 Kb/s DD is better.
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder.

Last edited by tebasuna51; 6th September 2009 at 12:22.
tebasuna51 is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 12:42   #9311  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 745
Quote:
That's not what I've read...
@ Bozster
chose one music(send me some options, maybe i have here)
i will encode in 5.1 and send: AC3-640k, DTS-1.5Mb, the seperateds waves useds as sources (L,R,C,LFE,LS,RS) and multichannel wave too.
after hear AC3 and DTS, tell us "who is who". after that compare the sound with the waves.
deal? :-)
raquete is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 13:19   #9312  |  Link
RonaldoSan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 28
I have a 6 channel wav file (created with eac3to) that I need to cut up into 6 wav files containing each their own channel.

Is this possible with eac3to?
RonaldoSan is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 15:28   #9313  |  Link
G_M_C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldoSan View Post
I have a 6 channel wav file (created with eac3to) [...]
Reprocess the source, and use the commandline to save "WAVs" in stead of "WAV".
G_M_C is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 17:15   #9314  |  Link
RonaldoSan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_M_C View Post
Reprocess the source, and use the commandline to save "WAVs" in stead of "WAV".
I was looking to avoid that, but I guess that is what I have to do.

Thanks for you help.
RonaldoSan is offline  
Old 6th September 2009, 18:24   #9315  |  Link
tebasuna51
Moderator
 
tebasuna51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldoSan View Post
I was looking to avoid that, but I guess that is what I have to do.
You can use the multichannel wav like input because is a lossless process:

eac3to multichan.wav mono.wavs
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder.
tebasuna51 is offline  
Old 7th September 2009, 00:20   #9316  |  Link
amgeex
Registered User
 
amgeex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Guatemala
Posts: 34
Just a quick question. When one does a eac3to -demux movie.mpls, the audio is not touched, right? The .dtsma audio I get is pure and not dependant on any decoders I have (or don't have) installed on my computer, right?

Thanks in advance!
amgeex is offline  
Old 7th September 2009, 04:14   #9317  |  Link
Bozster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by tebasuna51 View Post
I think he compare 448 Kb/s DD with 1.5 Mb/s DTS, and say 640 Kb/s DD is better.
Nope I disagree.. he meant in comparison to 448k DD and 768 DTS (as that's the standard DTS). The 1.5mbps DTS is not really standard.
Bozster is offline  
Old 7th September 2009, 11:16   #9318  |  Link
yesgrey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozster View Post
The 1.5mbps DTS is not really standard.
It's the standard for Blu-ray.
yesgrey is offline  
Old 7th September 2009, 11:33   #9319  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesgrey3 View Post
It's the standard for Blu-ray.
and DTS 1.536 Mb/s (we can name as 1.5Mb) for dvd.
if DTS 768 is the standard, DD 448K win for miles and the competition between formats is without sense.

Last edited by raquete; 7th September 2009 at 11:39. Reason: corrections
raquete is offline  
Old 7th September 2009, 20:19   #9320  |  Link
Snowknight26
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,430
A nice feature for eac3to would extracting a FLAC stream from an mkv file. Currently, the FLAC stream is decoded then encoded back to FLAC.
Snowknight26 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
eac3to

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 02:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.