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. |
19th November 2008, 23:55 | #7061 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Great North (the better half of North America)
Posts: 301
|
Guys, I need some advice. I have a demuxed BD that would be slightly larger than a SL BD-RE, my playback device is my PS3. I could recode the video to fit with the THD track on a BD-RE, which would consume a considerable amount of time, or I could convert the THD track to PCM and play as m2ts from the HDD.
My concern is if I convert the audio, will the PCM file be as close to a replica of the TrueHD track as possible... aside for the CBR and obvioulsy different file type? This would be the first time I convert the audio as I usually process the video with good results. Can anybody vouch for the quality of the audio conversion. Thanks. |
20th November 2008, 00:38 | #7063 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Great North (the better half of North America)
Posts: 301
|
Quote:
Thanks again. |
|
20th November 2008, 00:55 | #7065 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Great North (the better half of North America)
Posts: 301
|
I'm talking about the TrueHD track as the source file, not the BD structure or m2ts.
I just want to know, how true the newly created PCM file by eac3to will be to the BD TrueHD file... or is it worth it to just keep the TrueHD track and recode my video instead. |
20th November 2008, 01:26 | #7066 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,021
|
Quote:
think you have a thd decoder as default on your PC; say it is arcsoft audio decoder hd. If you play an original THD with this decoder it is an unzip processs. If you decode and re-encode to pcm with your default decoder, the final file can be considered as unzipped . But in our case libav will be used for decoding in re-encoding process. So it should be considered a rewrite of the original file. Last edited by rica; 20th November 2008 at 01:42. |
|
20th November 2008, 01:30 | #7067 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Great North (the better half of North America)
Posts: 301
|
Quote:
Thanks again. |
|
20th November 2008, 02:44 | #7069 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,915
|
This is the Sox Homepage
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder. |
20th November 2008, 03:11 | #7070 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,197
|
got a problem with converting a 2.0 ac3 track to .wavs: both outcoming wav files are slowed massively down, meaning all sounds and voices are played like ultra slowmotion.
can't say though if this is a specific problem of this single file or a general problem of 2.0 ac3 tracks. only had a 5.1 ac3 track to compare and that one played normaly after wave conversion. edit: just noticed the track is from a mpeg2 cap and according to mpegrepair 5.1, while eac3to only recognizes it as 2.0 20mb sample of the ac3 track: http://www.sendspace.com/file/nbry8n 50mb sample of the .ts: http://www.sendspace.com/file/03nqcj Last edited by Thunderbolt8; 20th November 2008 at 03:26. |
20th November 2008, 10:56 | #7071 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7
|
Error in Log generated when using 2 threads of EAC3to
Hello Madshi,
There is a little bug when using 2 separated threads of EAC3to, generated logs are the same, even if the source file is different and is located in a different folder. Log is nicely generated in the prompt window but not in the text log, think my text is clear... dant3s |
20th November 2008, 11:44 | #7072 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 6,915
|
Quote:
__________________
BeHappy, AviSynth audio transcoder. |
|
20th November 2008, 14:47 | #7073 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Posts: 29
|
hi all!
madshi, thank you for the great work! well, is this a bug or it's nothing serious? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by itsancho; 20th November 2008 at 15:49. |
||
20th November 2008, 17:24 | #7074 | Link |
unrecognized user
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: home of Stella Artois
Posts: 303
|
I noticed latest version makes monowavs from 5.1 to BL and BR instead of old style SL and SR.
Now my question is, in case of 7.1 track, which are the extra 2 (compared to 5.1), SB,SL or BR,BL? Thank you.
__________________
zzz |
20th November 2008, 19:21 | #7077 | Link |
unrecognized user
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: home of Stella Artois
Posts: 303
|
I don't see what doesn't make sense. It's the way they are labeled by eac3to and I want to now what is what. Following channels were created: L,R,C,LFE,SL,SR,BL,BR
__________________
zzz |
20th November 2008, 21:17 | #7079 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 585
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter what they're labeled. You only have 2 rear channels in 5.1 which will include the entire surround mix.
__________________
Chumbo |
|
20th November 2008, 21:55 | #7080 | Link |
unrecognized user
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: home of Stella Artois
Posts: 303
|
But those channels are from somewhere, they didn't drop from the sky. They are from a 7.1 track and I want to know what label correspons to what channel. Just like you know the LFE or C mean, I want to know what's the difference between SR and BR.
__________________
zzz |
Tags |
eac3to |
|
|