DTS track of 1536 Kbps ?

[apfraats]

I wanted to do Resident Evil last night, but a saw a huge DTS track of over 1GB for 1.36 hours of movie.

When playing back the DTS track, POWER-DVD gave a bitrate of 1536 Kbps, that is the double rate of 768 Kbps which I untill now always had for DTS.....

AnybodY ?

Thanks.

[Sir Didymus]

DTS audio in DVD have the following characteristics:

- Sample freq. 48 KHz
- Sample size up to 24 bits
- Channels 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, 2/1, 2/2, 3/2, 3/3 [all allows the optional LFE channel]
- Bitrate 64 to 1536 kbps

Bitrates of 768 and 1536 are typical values for DTS audio...
So, nothing special with your title...

[apfraats]

Thanx for the reply, I was wondering about this because I have about 1500 titles in my collection (yep LEGAL!), and this is the ONE and ONLY DTS dvd with 1536 Kbps, whele all other DTS titles (not all the 1500 of course) have 768 Kbps and nothing in between them.

As 768 Kbps gives almost perfect results, if recorded correctly (sometimes it sounds like 2.0 on bad mastered DVD's) I suppose 1536 if somewhat overdone in sample rate of something like that, so the question arises:

Is it possible to convert a 1536 DTS track to 768 Kbps DTS track ? As this would mean an average increase of almost 800 Kbps on video bitrate ????

Again Thanx, hope there is something to convert it back to 768 Kbps as this is considered 'standard' by me and gives great results. By the way it's reported as a 5 channel DTS track.

Using a 1536 Kbps DTS track looks somewhat overdone to me.......

[Sir Didymus]

Mhhh. Hope someone could give you better suggestions...

At a first sight, it seems to me you hardly may avoid doing a first audio decoding step, using Tranzcode for DTS -> WAV and after you have to use some good quality DTS or AC3 encoder for WAV -> DTS or WAV -> AC3. Be careful, anyway, since a good quality ac3 encoding is not trivial to obtain. Maybe you can browse and/or search a little bit in the Audio Encoding forum.

The bad news is that Dolby Certified AC3 encoders are few and expensive (actually I think they exist almost exclusively as plugins of huge audio suites, like Steinberg Nuendo). I am not sure, but the situation for DTS maybe is even worse.

Then, you may follow the nice (and fundamental) guide of Malcolm here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=84887

For replacing the audio asset from your DVD. I did it for converting to AC3 some titles with huge LPCM tracks, and it works...

Never did something similar with DTS.

[jdobbs]

I use "Soft Encode" for AC3 creation and have been very satisfied with the results -- but it is definitely pricey (about $500). If you want to stay with the freeware world, BeSweet does AC3. I can't really say much about the quality (one way or the other) as I've always used Soft Encode.

I'm not aware of any software that does DTS to DTS conversion... but I think DTS is a waste of space anyway -- DD5.1 is (IMHO) just as good and a lot more efficient. From what I've heard the only difference seems to be volume, and I have a control for that.

[arnie.d]

As 768 Kbps gives almost perfect results, if recorded correctly (sometimes it sounds like 2.0 on bad mastered DVD's) I suppose 1536 if somewhat overdone in sample rate of something like that, so the question arises:

Is it possible to convert a 1536 DTS track to 768 Kbps DTS track ? As this would mean an average increase of almost 800 Kbps on video bitrate ????
Why would you want to downsample the audio? To get more space for video? The quality of the audio won't get better when downsampling and the video won't get better if you reencode with an average bitrate 800 kbps higher.

[jdobbs]

I don't know... 800Kbs is pretty significant. It might be the difference between getting a 1600Kbs and 2400Kbs encode -- which would show a huge increase in quality.

[arnie.d]

Huh? Why would the quality of any video increase when you re-encode using a higher bitrate?

[manono]

Huh? Why would the quality of any video increase when you re-encode using a higher bitrate?

What, is that some kind of a trick question? Compared to reencoding at a lower bitrate, of course the quality improves. The quality is more-or-less directional proportional to the bitrate, up to a certain point, all other factors being equal. Basic stuff, that. In jdobbs example, the quality will increase by about 50%, as measured by the average quant. In a more real world example, freeing up 800 bits might allow a movie to go from 3200 to 4000 sometimes, for a 20% increase in quality. Those are significant numbers. If you're saying you can't improve on the quality of the original, then that's correct, unless it's of poor quality to begin with, but the aim here is to get the quality of the reencode as close to the original as possible, and one way to help do that is to dump that full bitrate DTS track.

I'm sure there are some, but I don't know of any DTS encoders either. I've reencoded full bitrate DTS to DD 5.1 448 AC3 using Soft Encode, freeing up almost 1100 bits for the video. You'd need a pretty good sound system to be able to tell the difference.

[Rockas]

I'm sure there are some, but I don't know of any DTS encoders either. I've reencoded full bitrate DTS to DD 5.1 448 AC3 using Soft Encode, freeing up almost 1100 bits for the video. You'd need a pretty good sound system to be able to tell the difference.
and still I wonder.... will anyone (besides "hearing genies") notice any difference using the best sound system available?

... just my two cents :D (I have kids - 5 years Boy and 1,5 years girl - that gives me two options.... 1st I see the movies while they're awake and I won't be able to see a damned thing or... 2nd I watch my movies when they are sleeping and then I can't put the volume as high as I can so.... if there's someone that can tell the difference between DTS and AC3 be aware... use your hability to hear before you get any children or else... you will only be able to use your gift after they get older and get their own house, and when that moment comes it may be too late... you don't have the gift anymore... you are old :D :D :D)

[apfraats]

My luck :D : I don't have children.

And even on a cheap 5.1 set I can hear the difference between 5.1 and DTS.

It's about the fact that DTS has better channel seperation and wider frequencie ranges, that's why it's also using more space.

But I agree: More than once the DTS channel of a DVD sounded worse then a 5.1 DD track from a well recorded DVD......

However I have a few DTS DVD's that clearly makes you hear the difference. I said just a few....

So if DTS is considered overdone by some already (I don't IF the recording is done properly) using the double 1536 rate looks really overdone....

Just needed a tool to resample it to 768 Kbps would be great, but as it seems, there is not such a tool.

Wishlist for DVD-RB-PRO 2.0: DTS to DTS and 5.1 conversion :cool: :cool: :D :D

[wmansir]

Just FYI, 1536 is known as full rate, with 768 as half rate. And your right, full rate DTS is rare these days. It was much more common with laser discs, but 768 won out on DVD because 1. you can put DD 5.1, DTS half-rate and DD 2.0 in about the same space as a full rate DTS track. It markets better, and you only have to make 1 disc, instead of a DTS release and a DD 5.1 release. 2. For the same bitrate you coud put on an uncompressed stereo PCM track. You get superior sound, although not surround, plus you don't have to pay the DTS people.

[blutach]

For what it worth, I like DTS. I prefer it over DD and would consider full DTS to be terrific to have on all my DVDs (and yes, I know the specs require AC-3 or PCM on every NTSC DVD).

Regards

[Mug Funky]

the only thing DTS has over AC3 is transient response (ac3 fails at this above 18k or so, i forget the cutoff). but it's HF response is lousy - if you've got good ears and tweeters you'll definitely miss these. full-rate DTS helps here, but means lowering the max rate of the video, which is something you should keep as high as possible.