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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 22nd January 2007, 13:15   #1  |  Link
xbox360
Registered User
 
xbox360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Region 3 with NDS Encryption
Posts: 355
DTS 1.536mb vs 768kb

Hello to Everyone, will there be any noticeble diference if I choose to encode my 6mono wav to DTS 1.536mb instead of DTS 768kb. I know in theory there should be a diference but for a normal human would they be able to notice the diference with their ears ?.

Last edited by xbox360; 22nd January 2007 at 16:07.
xbox360 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2007, 15:19   #2  |  Link
Mug Funky
interlace this!
 
Mug Funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,547
the high rate one will have less aggressive lowpassing. you'll get more treble.

of course you'll have to encode your video that much lower to fit the DTS in with it - remember to subtract all your audio stream's bitrates from 9800 and set the result as your max bitrate (leave a little headroom for subtitles and encoder bitrate spikes). so for a full-rate DTS + 224 ac3 track you're looking at a max bitrate of 8000 kbps at the most.

half rate DTS is generally acceptable though - just don't buy into the DTS hype and expect it to be better than ac3. it isn't, pure and simple. the only advantage DTS has over ac3 is less pre-echo in very specific situations (applause, castanets, tuba and muted brass instruments...generally sharp transients). in every other aspect it is far, far inferior and only sounds good at all because of the massive bitrate.
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004
Mug Funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2007, 19:03   #3  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Good points Mug. I don't know how many times I've seen people post the assumtion that DTS is better than AC3 simply because it has a higher bit rate. They treat the two as if the only difference is bitrate.
ursamtl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2007, 19:48   #4  |  Link
kumi
Straight to video
 
kumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 637
@Mug Funky: do you happen to have any respectable links to listening tests or studies that bring out the shortcoming of DTS over AC3? Unfortunately my current audio components do not have the sufficient resolution for ABXing myself.

Over the years, I've been stripping out AC3 in favor of DTS when backing up my DVD acquisitions, with the presupposition that future upgrades to my audio components will bring out the benefits of DTS. If the hype is wrong, I'd like to know so I can "settle" for AC3 instead, and gain the extra space for the other DVD assets...
kumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2007, 01:48   #5  |  Link
Mug Funky
interlace this!
 
Mug Funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,547
unfortunately i haven't a link to listening tests - my conclusions are based on technical characteristics of both codecs and some informal testing on my own part (through headphones only - certainly wouldn't be acceptible on hydrogenaudio ).

all things being equal, the ac3 will probably sound better, and will certainly have higher bandwidth, especially when compared to DTS at 754.05 kbps. i'm talking about ac3 at 448kbps here btw...

however, all things are not equal. usually the DTS track is produced from an entirely different master - in here we often get in a "5.1 mix" tape, and a "5.1 DTS mix" tape. the dynamics are different, usually the bass is overblown in the ac3 mix. this isn't due to the codecs - just the way the mastering engineers have made 2 different mixes. it's funny - when people hear a difference, it's mostly because they're hearing different sound, not because they're hearing different codecs (there's a bit of that too i suppose).

one of these days it'd be cool to do a test encode of ac3 and DTS off the same tape, however i can't see myself doing that as i've got a new job and am only here for a few more days (hooray for me).
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004
Mug Funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2007, 02:50   #6  |  Link
Skelsgard
foobaring my ass off
 
Skelsgard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mug Funky
just don't buy into the DTS hype and expect it to be better than ac3. it isn't, pure and simple. the only advantage DTS has over ac3 is less pre-echo in very specific situations (applause, castanets, tuba and muted brass instruments...generally sharp transients). in every other aspect it is far, far inferior and only sounds good at all because of the massive bitrate.
Finally someone who doesn't believe that DTS with its overblown bitrate is better than AC3.
You're my new god. Too bad you say you're here only for a few more days

Now to the issue (so this won't be rated as a no-use post )
For average Joe's hears, they will sound pretty much the same.
I personally think 1536kbps is total and massive overkill.
And for all of those DTS lovers outthere: IF A NEW CODEC CAME OUT WITH ITS AUTHOR SAYING THAT ITīS BETTER THAN OTHER BEACUSE IT SOUNDS GOOD AT 1536 KBPS, YOU WOULD CALL THAT AUTHOR "RIDICULOUS". DTS is obsolete by essence. At 1536 kbps, MP1 would sound good.

Cheers.
__________________
"Damn, respect my authoritay!!" - E. Cartman
Skelsgard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2007, 14:00   #7  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Congratulations on the new job, Mug! You brought up another important point. One of the reasons DTS is perceived as sounding better is because of separate mixes and/or masterings that are done for the two. If you look around the net at the right places, you can find proponents of both sides claiming theirs is the better codec. There is definitely a perception out there that DTS is superior for music but I'm not convinced that this has any solid basis in fact.

I tend to lean towards AC3 for two practical reasons. Firstly, the DVD spec supports it as a basic audio track whereas the DTS is an add-on that cannot exist on a DVD without another audio track. Secondly, the more efficient bandwidth use of AC3 means there's more room for better quality video. If I were doing an audio-only disc, I'd probably go for DVD-A with uncompressed audio. Let's face it, the price of blank discs is about the same so there's no advantage in doing just a surround CD.
ursamtl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2007, 14:57   #8  |  Link
Mug Funky
interlace this!
 
Mug Funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,547
@ Skelsgard:

relax... i'll still spend idle time in the forum. just means i wont have access to limitless master tapes, a CAE-4 DTS encoder (the model just before the one that does DTS-ES, dammit) and an ACXpress card. but someone else out there no doubt can do some formal tests on typical content at standard DVD bitrates (384 kbps ac3 is too low for 6 channel stuff, but 448 is pretty good).

it's too bad there isn't a free DTS encoder - given the rapid development of aften, i imagine it will be the state of the art of ac3 in a few months. then it'd need to be expanded to support dolby digital plus or whatever it's called (the one that goes up past 640kbps).
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004
Mug Funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2007, 15:50   #9  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 741
Quote:
Finally someone who doesn't believe that DTS with its overblown bitrate is better than AC3.
he is not alone!Skelsgard,don't need to quote your complete post,you're very clever and right in your comments!
Quote:
certainly wouldn't be acceptible on hydrogenaudio
my opinion don't have weight there as their opinion don't have weight for me.their base came from draws,graphics and from dubious ears( lol but true).they only can proove what his aparators can show and what you,me or any other can listen is despicable in his opinion and i have one Sony(digital video/audio control center where the DTS could sounds better but no,DTS and AC3 sounds exactly equal!
i have hundreds of convertions to AC3 and to DTS using the same sources for both and they sounds exactly equal.
i posted some samples in another forum and nobody could tell the differences.
regards all!
__________________
search raquete
raquete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2007, 01:10   #10  |  Link
Mug Funky
interlace this!
 
Mug Funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by raquete
sounds exactly equal.
to play the devil's advocate, i'd say a statement like that is why ABX is insisted upon at that forum. i agree with the methods on HA, i just don't have the time to ABX everything - usually it's judged on "are there audible artefacts? if not use it". of course it could sound quite different from the source without actual artefacts becoming audible.

i really would like to settle the DTS v AC3 thing, but i doubt it would achieve anything. from the point of view of where i am, the bean counters have spent a shirtload on their hardware DTS encoder, and they're going to use it to justify their investment.
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004
Mug Funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2007, 02:15   #11  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 741
ABX tests is for who can feel differences...maybe you can tell the difference,maybe i don't then,it takes me to this question: why someone that can feel use the results from tests from other person,i mean,ABX is personal and deppend of our ears and not from equipaments.
if one ABX user buy one DTS album,how he can tell that sounds good or bad? based in what reference?
in HA they use ABX tests to compare mp3 (lol) and not sounds with quality.
but i know what you mean Mug Funky and be sure that there nobody never did comparisons between DTS and AC3(nobody care or don't use) but thousands ABX tests was done in mp3...lol (really lol)
they love "sounds for portables".

DTS sounds really good...just like AC3 or vice-versa!
in my taste AC3 is champion...no problems with gaps between tracks and others advantages.

from somewhere(other forum) :
"My conclusion was that the codecs being this close shows me that if you are hearing a vast difference between DD and DTS on your systems at home that there is some processing going on that you are un aware of. It may be user adjustable or something that the manufacturer has introduced without your knowledge. But the actual codecs are close enough that you must have exceptional hearing with a system that is better than that in most studios to hear any noticeable difference. This was an A/B(C) test. 'C' being the original master and we still had difficulty telling a difference between tham. Those of us who heard the difference (almost all of us) had difficulty describing what that difference was."

and if you have time for some lecture: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=142414

one wise guy wrote: "I found that it doesn't matter what I found."
...i think the same and no matter what i think too.

regards.
__________________
search raquete
raquete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2007, 03:09   #12  |  Link
Skelsgard
foobaring my ass off
 
Skelsgard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Argentina
Posts: 620
Dolby Digital Plus (thatīs the name) will kick DTS's arss when the software decoders hit the market, from my POV. And if Aften can keep up with it, DTS will become truely obsolete, in part for what Iīve stated before, in part cause there are no free DTS encoders (a genius move for a company trying to get everybody to use their format, hahaha).
For Dolby Plus, up to 14 discrete channels (13.1), although the HD DVDs standard only allows 7.1, re-written encoding algorithms (they say improved, I donīt want to be a Dolby advertiser, letīs just say re-written as that is true), bitrate up to 3Mb. But I think youīll hardly need to go far from 640 kbps approx. for 7.1 channel encoding.
DTS is still pushing its DTS-ES Discrete 6.1. Good luck with that.
I hope the new Dolby format is not too far away in time for testing. I hope they can live up to the expectation they created with this improved format, otherwise I will hate their guts.

Cheers, people.

P.D. good to know youīll still be around, Mug
__________________
"Damn, respect my authoritay!!" - E. Cartman
Skelsgard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2007, 05:25   #13  |  Link
Mug Funky
interlace this!
 
Mug Funky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: i'm in ur transfers, addin noise
Posts: 4,547
@ raquete:

nothing wrong with mp3. the ABX'ing proves that.

think about it - it's about statistics. if enough people with different ears (not that different - we're all human) test the same samples against the originals, and each person can't reliably tell a difference then the codec is pronounced transparent, at least in that situation.

the more people do the same test, the more reliable the results are. you can say with evidence that 99% of people can't hear a difference on 99% of sources on 99% of playback equipment.

that still means 1 in 100 of the above factors means someone will hear a (probably tiny) difference, but that's not usually a big deal.

if you're looking at 2 channel sound, mp3 actually beats ac3 hands down (though aften might change that - i don't think many ac3 encoders exploit short blocks, and LAME is good because it knows when to use them).

and mp2 structurally is more efficient than DTS...

i have a lot of respect for HA, and trust their results. i just haven't enough time on my hands to do extensive ABX'ing... near enough is good enough for me (though i'll still use HA's recommended settings in LAME for my music).
__________________
sucking the life out of your videos since 2004
Mug Funky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2007, 12:18   #14  |  Link
raquete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 741
you are clever MF.
i had problems in HA at long months ago,i respect the place but not some users that call for ABX and scientifics results all the time and i ask: how can you proove what you can't hear? posting one .txt with the results?
i don't know how much they can hear,the amplifier used,the speakers,how clean is the source,how sincere some of they are(here is my central point,i saw lots of kids kidding with audio there and in the middle of the statistics have the "votes" of this kids in "mary-go-round")...more...and/or if this tests was using headphones with one trashfull audioboard in pc.
yes,i'm severe with audio,i really don't use mp3 and don't like.
i posted there some noises in the background and,as nobody could hear the noises they was calling for scientific prooves.was posted lots of screenshots and was asked too: how you can proove what you can hear?
after lots of blah,blah,blahs,nobody could hear the noises(and they was too big),i could not proove that i could hear....one enormeous group are fighting against my oppinon...
...end of the history and the end of my trust in that forum.

here is different,we show the problem and the team came to see the problem.after confirm the problem always came one solution and not a new problem.
here we find solutions,there we have to accept their argumments or...we're out....and i'm out!

Quote:
use HA's recommended settings in LAME for my music
like i told you,they play mp3 and portables...nothing serious for my taste,i play clean audio only!!!
regards!
__________________
search raquete

Last edited by raquete; 25th January 2007 at 12:27.
raquete 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 20:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.