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 > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > (HD) DVD & Blu-ray authoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12th March 2007, 16:06   #1021  |  Link
Rectal Prolapse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 433
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, zgx EDIT: and clsid. I couldn't get the original FLAC decoder to connect after Haali's splitter (different media subtype), but your alternatives should help me out!

I'll see if there is a separate Haali-compatible decoder for WavPack too. I really could use the delay after demuxing HD-DVDs -somehow this delay information is lost after the conversion!

I suppose I can find a WAV utility to add the required silence, but again that is outside my expertise.

BTW, I've been experimenting with WMA Lossless. The file size is much larger than expected, and it doesn't help that the conversion tool (using WMP10 I think) has a 4 GB limit with WAVs - it will only convert up to 74 minutes and 13 seconds, and not tell me it ignored the rest! Blah.

Oh well - I can't mux a WMA Lossless stream into an MKV anyways. Although MPC can load it as an external soundtrack and works VERY nicely I might add - until you hit the silence after 74:13.

Also, it appears that gdsmux does not support FLAC. When I try to mux it in, it thrashes around for a few seconds on the hard disk, and then it does nothing forever after that - and leaves me with a 0 byte MKV file. So I guess you must use MKVToolNix for the time being.

Last edited by Rectal Prolapse; 12th March 2007 at 17:34.
Rectal Prolapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 00:07   #1022  |  Link
Rectal Prolapse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 433
Darth Pinous said:

Quote:
You should try WavPack instead of FLAC. You can delay a WavPack soundtrack in mkvmerge.
Hmmm, this didn't work for mkvmerge 2.0.2. The delay setting was ignored in playback when using WavPack, which I just managed to get working in an mkv, so far *fingers crossed*.

I will report back after trying gdsmux.
Rectal Prolapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 00:15   #1023  |  Link
Rectal Prolapse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 433
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...726#post958726

Quote:
mkvmerge should add silence, but it doesn't support this for all audio formats (only for AC3, MP3, Vorbis if I'm not mistaken). At the moment it creates weird sound for AC3 because it does the wrong thing.
Well, there you go.

EDIT: It appears to work with gdsmux though....

Last edited by Rectal Prolapse; 13th March 2007 at 00:19.
Rectal Prolapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 11:06   #1024  |  Link
Darth Pinous
Registered User
 
Darth Pinous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In a galaxy far, far away
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rectal Prolapse View Post
Darth Pinous said:



Hmmm, this didn't work for mkvmerge 2.0.2. The delay setting was ignored in playback when using WavPack, which I just managed to get working in an mkv, so far *fingers crossed*.

I will report back after trying gdsmux.
I just noticed that... I will try to add delay in BeHappy, when the Wavpack soundtrack is created...
Darth Pinous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 11:11   #1025  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Did anyone compare how a 640kbit E-AC3 -> AC3 converted audio track sounds compared to a 448kbit DVD original audio track? Do they sound roughly identical or is one better than the other?

Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 11:36   #1026  |  Link
MichalHabart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Did anyone compare how a 640kbit E-AC3 -> AC3 converted audio track sounds compared to a 448kbit DVD original audio track? Do they sound roughly identical or is one better than the other?

Thanks!
I did not do any deep comparision but eac3 should always sound better then dvd ac3 especially because it is from better source and has better dynamic then ordinary ac3
MichalHabart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 11:45   #1027  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichalHabart View Post
I did not do any deep comparision but eac3 should always sound better then dvd ac3 especially because it is from better source and has better dynamic then ordinary ac3
Sure. But my question was about reencoded E-AC3. You know, every lossy reencoding hurts quality. So it's not clear to me which sounds better:

(1) E-AC3 to 640kbit AC3
+ advantage: final AC3 is 640kbit instead of 448kbit
- disadvantage: encoded + reencoded, both lossy

(2) 448kbit AC3 from DVD
+ advantage: encoded only once
- disadvantage: final AC3 is 448kbit instead of 640kbit

So which sounds better? I'm not very experienced in comparing soundtracks. So I'm not sure whether I can trust my ears. I'd really love to hear some comments about what you guys think.
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 12:47   #1028  |  Link
MichalHabart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Sure. But my question was about reencoded E-AC3. You know, every lossy reencoding hurts quality. So it's not clear to me which sounds better:

(1) E-AC3 to 640kbit AC3
+ advantage: final AC3 is 640kbit instead of 448kbit
- disadvantage: encoded + reencoded, both lossy

(2) 448kbit AC3 from DVD
+ advantage: encoded only once
- disadvantage: final AC3 is 448kbit instead of 640kbit

So which sounds better? I'm not very experienced in comparing soundtracks. So I'm not sure whether I can trust my ears. I'd really love to hear some comments about what you guys think.
Definitely ac3 transcoded from eac3
MichalHabart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 13:02   #1029  |  Link
zgx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Sure. But my question was about reencoded E-AC3. You know, every lossy reencoding hurts quality.
You are right - every lossy encode hurts quality. It's not obvious that the 640 Kbps AC3 reencode will sound better then the 448 Kbps AC3 from a DVD.

Lossless Source -> 640 Kbps E-AC3 -> 640 Kbps AC3
Lossless Source -> 448 Kbps AC3

I'm not sure if I could hear any difference in a ABX test but I don't want to take any chances so I prefere to play the E-AC3 track directly. There is no need to reencode it. Configure your favorite player (ZoomPlayer or MPC for example) to decode "AC3" with "Sonic Cinemaster Audio Decoder 4.2". Then put AC3Filter "behind" the Sonic filter and you should be able to decode E-AC3 tracks. Of course you can't use S/PDIF with E-AC3 unless you are fine with AC3Filter doing a realtime "reencode" to AC3.

You can also mux a E-AC3 tracks with your video in a MKV container.
zgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 13:14   #1030  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichalHabart View Post
Definitely ac3 transcoded from eac3
Are you guessing or did you do a real comparison?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zgx
You are right - every lossy encode hurts quality. It's not obvious that the 640 Kbps AC3 reencode will sound better then the 448 Kbps AC3 from a DVD.

Lossless Source -> 640 Kbps E-AC3 -> 640 Kbps AC3
Lossless Source -> 448 Kbps AC3

I'm not sure if I could hear any difference in a ABX test but I don't want to take any chances so I prefere to play the E-AC3 track directly. There is no need to reencode it. Configure your favorite player (ZoomPlayer or MPC for example) to decode "AC3" with "Sonic Cinemaster Audio Decoder 4.2". Then put AC3Filter "behind" the Sonic filter and you should be able to decode E-AC3 tracks. Of course you can't use S/PDIF with E-AC3 unless you are fine with AC3Filter doing a realtime "reencode" to AC3.

You can also mux a E-AC3 tracks with your video in a MKV container.
Well, my receiver doesn't have HDMI inputs and I don't have a 5.1 analog connection between PC and receiver (too far away), so SPDIF is the only choice I have. That's why I'm asking.

I do plan to mux both the E-AC3 (for future use) and an AC3 (for compatability) track into my MKVs. The big question is whether I should mux a DVD ripped AC3 track or whether I should mux an E-AC3 -> AC3 converted track. That's really a tough decision!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 14:37   #1031  |  Link
JeffAlso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by zgx View Post
Lossless Source -> 640 Kbps E-AC3 -> 640 Kbps AC3
Lossless Source -> 448 Kbps AC3
I'm no expert here, but I would highly suspect that the amount of quality loss from a reencode would be significantly less than the quality loss suffered from lowering the bitrate by 30%.
JeffAlso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 15:36   #1032  |  Link
MichalHabart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Are you guessing or did you do a real comparison?
It is based on listening comparision done by JnZ
MichalHabart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:02   #1033  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichalHabart View Post
It is based on listening comparision done by JnZ
Do you have a link to that comparison? I read all JnZ posts in this thread and didn't find a comparison. Thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:03   #1034  |  Link
Ashraf-Khan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1
hello all,

nice forum & helpful!!

so, let me say that i love win media center.
for that reason i want to copy my 13+ hd-dvds (just the pure movie evos) on a new 500 gig hdd.
yesterday i just installed sonic decoder pack and it worked!

but only on one pc.

on the other it won't work whether just playing in mce or in graphedit
(audio dec. v. 4.2.xxx.102 , video dec. xxx140 & demuxer xxx61)

furthermore i can't connect for example demuxer with audio dec! (no "zwischenfilter")

could you please post your ver. numbers and if the filters can be connected so we can figure out which versions work & which is the newest!

olli
Ashraf-Khan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:06   #1035  |  Link
zgx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
I do plan to mux both the E-AC3 (for future use) and an AC3 (for compatability) track into my MKVs. The big question is whether I should mux a DVD ripped AC3 track or whether I should mux an E-AC3 -> AC3 converted track. That's really a tough decision!
Mux the E-AC3 track and let AC3Filter do realtime re-encoding to AC3 to output over S/PDIF. Might not sound as good as a professional AC3 re-encode but then you will have the E-AC3 intact for future use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffAlso View Post
I'm no expert here, but I would highly suspect that the amount of quality loss from a reencode would be significantly less than the quality loss suffered from lowering the bitrate by 30%.
You are probably right.
zgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:15   #1036  |  Link
MichalHabart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post
Do you have a link to that comparison? I read all JnZ posts in this thread and didn't find a comparison. Thanks!
No, i have our conversation only in history of QIP
MichalHabart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:30   #1037  |  Link
Rectal Prolapse
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 433
DarthPinous - BeHappy can add delays? I didn't know that - and it can encode in WavPack? Well, that would save me a lot of steps! (and hard drive space).
Rectal Prolapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 16:38   #1038  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by zgx View Post
Mux the E-AC3 track and let AC3Filter do realtime re-encoding to AC3 to output over S/PDIF. Might not sound as good as a professional AC3 re-encode but then you will have the E-AC3 intact for future use.
This way I'd have a MKV which would be perfect for future use. But it would be suboptimal for today's use. I'm not satisfied with that. I want to have the best possible AC3 track in my MKV, right next to the original E-AC3 track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichalHabart View Post
No, i have our conversation only in history of QIP
Ok, thanks!
madshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 17:15   #1039  |  Link
JnZ
Registered User
 
JnZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Czech
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichalHabart View Post
No, i have our conversation only in history of QIP
Well guys, I write it something like this:
I compared only output formats: AC3 vs DTS vs OGG, all in blind ABX test on my headphones Koss Porta Pro...soundcard M-Audio Revo 5.1 (muxed 5.1 to 2.0 first).

I test this:
- AC3 from BeSweet 448,640kbps
- DTS from SurCode 1536,768kbps
- OGG from AoTuV Q6,Q5,Q4,Q3,Q2,Q1.

Definitely, I must say I can't hear any diferences between this formats. Only in case DTS 768 I hear very-very-small difference (I suspects SurCode for producing bad crap). I've been only surprised, OGG produced very good quality in small, acceptable biterate...I can't hear any difference even at biterate around 180-200kbps!!! I hear margin, until I lowered biterate to aprox 160kbps.

Other thing: When I do ABX tests, I must gain volume in AC3 about 6-8dB compared DTS and OGG formats. OGG and DTS had almost the same level of volume...this is very good, because OGG sounds like DTS, not like crappy silent AC3. So I choose for me OGG. But pros for AC3: when boosted, it sounds like DTS or OGG (I can't hear any difference).

I can't make hear tests DD+ vs AC3, coz in my region, I have PAL DVD's which have different pitch of audio track...and transcoding via besweet 25->23.976fps is another quality lost. But if I can say in my fleeting test...AC3 from DD+ sounds better.

J.
__________________
(Sorry for my bad english, I'm czech, not englishman... :))

Last edited by JnZ; 13th March 2007 at 17:19.
JnZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 18:12   #1040  |  Link
madshi
Registered Developer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
Thanks, JnZ.
madshi 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 09:27.


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