ac3 in .mp4 file

[Kolich]

Do anyone can share me .mp4 file with ac3 sound. Or tell which programm can produce such files?

[Hyper Shinchan]

AC3 in MP4? There's no way to do it at the moment, also if i think that it would be added, because a lot of guys need it. Otherwise MP4Box supports Thera and Vorbis in MP4.... via private streams of course.

[Zero1]

I'd be tempted to suggest using MKV instead, rather than "bastardising" MP4. I know that you can place other MPEG streams in it no problem, but right now the assumption is that MP4 videos use ASP/H.264 and/or MP3/AAC, so it will probably save confusion in the long run if you plan to distro the file of any sort.

If it's just for personal use I guess none of it matters :)

(Perhaps I'm just being a spec nazi here :p, bond might side with me though ;))

[bond]

bond sides with zero1 ;)

[Kolich]

:) i need to use MP4, and need to handle ac3 in MP4. That is requrements. But i didn't meet any such file or any programm to create it:-/

[Elias]

Do anyone can share me .mp4 file with ac3 sound. Or tell which programm can produce such files?Please don't do this. It's not good. Use Matroska if you MUST use AC3, or just encode the audio to AAC. Don't mess with mp4 by putting codecs in it that it's not supposed to handle--even if it can be done.

Oh and:

Elias sides with bond and Zero1 :)

[Kolich]

Please don't do this. It's not good. Use Matroska if you MUST use AC3, or just encode the audio to AAC. Don't mess with mp4 by putting codecs in it that it's not supposed to handle--even if it can be done.

I cant :-( It's requirements and not my desire:)

[Elias]

I cant :-( It's requirements and not my desire:)I see... well, just don't make it a habit then: other codecs than MPEG in mp4 doesn't really benefit anyone, because that's not what the container was designed for. Matroska is best suited for such purpose.

[SeeMoreDigital]

And Kolich is not alone in wanting to place AC3 audio in MP4.

I get e-mails from people all the time saying stuff like: -

"I like MP4 but I can't get any surround sound from my amplifier"

"I'd use MP4 but I don't because I can't keep my original AC3 audio stream"

And then I get e-mails from frantic people who don't understand why their DSS amps can't decode the audio in their Recode2 encodes. And others who are convinced that "they can" play AAC audio via SPDIF but the channels are incorrectly mapped..... and the list goes on :scared:


Given the proposed flexibility of the new "blue laser" high-def media formats (and presumably the stand-alone players), we might see AC3 (or AC3 Plus) audio paired along-side MPEG-4 AVC video but it's anybodies guess which container will be used as to achieve this.... I very much doubt it will be MP4 though!

Looking at it from a confused "end-users" point of view, I'm not against the idea of placing AC3 with MP4 as a "Private Stream".


Cheers

[Doom9]

I'm not against the idea of placing AC3 with MP4 as a "Private Stream".It's just that no hardware player will ever be able to play these streams... HD DVD and Blu-Ray will not use the MP4 container, but ??? and Transport streams (yes, it's insane.. but what do you expect from a DRM infested company that sticks to outdated compression formats because they need to justify the extra space on their more expensive and more DRM infested format?)

Considering that, Matroska is the better choice, plain and simple.

[Elias]

It's just that no hardware player will ever be able to play these streams... HD DVD and Blu-Ray will not use the MP4 container, but ??? and Transport streams (yes, it's insane.. but what do you expect from a DRM infested company that sticks to outdated compression formats because they need to justify the extra space on their more expensive and more DRM infested format?)

Considering that, Matroska is the better choice, plain and simple.So what you're saying is pretty much that Blu-Ray never will use MPEG-4 AVC?

[Doom9]

So what you're saying is pretty much that Blu-Ray never will use MPEG-4 AVC?No, but that pre-recorded media are unlikely to use AVC. Since it's a mandatory part of the specs, you'll still be able to make your own Blu-ray discs containing AVC (or VC-1). We are more likely to see AVC and VC-1 being used on HD DVD.. in fact most of the studios supporting HD DVD are rumored to be in either the AVC or VC-1 camp. Looking at the massively higher bitrate MPEG-2 needs for the same content, and considering the difference in space available, that's no surprise to me.

[Elias]

No, but that pre-recorded media are unlikely to use AVC. Since it's a mandatory part of the specs, you'll still be able to make your own Blu-ray discs containing AVC (or VC-1). We are more likely to see AVC and VC-1 being used on HD DVD.. in fact most of the studios supporting HD DVD are rumored to be in either the AVC or VC-1 camp. Looking at the massively higher bitrate MPEG-2 needs for the same content, and considering the difference in space available, that's no surprise to me.Well, if HD-DVD is going to compete with Blu-Ray, AVC is mandatory. HD-DVD has no chance without MPEG-4 AVC. But what about future Blu-Ray discs? I mean, will they always be pre-recorded with MPEG-2?

By the way, don't worry about the DRM aspects with Blu-Ray: it will get cracked sooner or later :)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Matroska is the better choice, plain and simple.Yes but no hardware player can play these streams either. And there's the rub.... ;)

Now hopefully we'll start seeing Matroska capable stand-alones soon but it will take time (probably quite a long time) before everybody's favourite audio and video combination is satisfied

Plus, if somebody can reliably work out a way of putting AC3 in streams into MP4 so they can be played on a PC, I might (just might) be able to get a manufacturer to incorporate the same in a stand-alone player ;)


Cheers

[Elias]

Plus, if somebody can reliably work out a way of putting AC3 in streams into MP4 so they can be played on a PC, I might (just might) be able to get a manufacturer to incorporate the same in a stand-alone playerI don't get it, what's the purpose with this? When it comes to all kind of codecs, then mp4 sucks: it's not good for this. mp4 was pretty much made for MPEG-4 only, with the exception of MPEG-1/2 codecs. It's really not suited for anything else, so why try to force codecs in it which don't belong there in the first place?

Doom9 is right when he says that Matroska is the best for such purpose.

[Doom9]

Plus, if somebody can reliably work out a way of putting AC3 in streams into MP4 so they can be played on a PC, I might (just might) be able to get a manufacturer to incorporate the same in a stand-alone playerYeah right.. look where we are with MP4 support despite NeroDigital.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Yeah right.. look where we are with MP4 support despite NeroDigital.Yep.... but you've got to start somewhere!

If it had been possible to place AC3 in MP4 way back in say 2002, for all we know it might have helped to kill off AVI ;)

[Kurtnoise]

Why not using AAC multichannel within mp4 container instead of AC3 ? It works pretty well imo (I haven't a sap but huh...:))

[Doom9]

Some people have the rather blue-eyed notion that if you can put it in an MP4, your standalone player will eventually be able to play it. That's wishful thinking at best. Let's not forget that unless it has the NeroDigital logo, MP4 capable players cannot even handle the subtitles and chapters used by NeroDigital.. it's in no way better than the new DivX media format.. in fact even worse since the latter is downward compatible so any existing player (and there's quite a few) can handle such files, just not with all the features.

So you can go through the following questions:

1) Do I need AC3? If yes -> 1a, if no -> 1b
1a) Do I need standalone playback? if yes 1aa, if no 1ab
1aa) AVI (or DivX)
1ab) AVI (or DivX) or OGM or MKV
1b) Do I need standalone playback? if yes, 1ba, if no 1bb
1ba) Can my player handle NeroDigital? if yes, 1baa, if no, 1bab
etc.

Even ifand that's a big if, there's ever a way to mux AC3 into MP4 as private streams, if you in addition need standalone playback, then you are still stuck with the options from 1aa).

[SeeMoreDigital]

Why not using AAC multichannel within mp4 container instead of AC3 ? Personally speaking I do.... and it does work very well :)

But I'm okay because I have an MP4 capable stand-alone player with 6Ch analogue audio outputs and a DSS amp with 6Ch analogue audio inputs!

But many people who are on the hunt for a new MP4 capable stand-alone player don't have DSS amps with 6Ch analogue inputs, their amps only accept AC3 and/or DTS via SPDIF.... And then you have all those other people who, quite simply, hate the idea/concept of AAC audio!

But as Doom9 has already pointed out, there are no "applications" to place AC3 in MP4 as a private stream and we don't have any AC3 in MP4 capable "SAP's"

But I look at it this way.... if we don't have the "applications" it's impossible to measure the "user-interest" and if we can't measure the "user-interest" we'll never get manufacturers to build the "SAP's"

As with most new audio and video innovations, it will have to kick off and take off on our computers before any SAP manufacturer will commit themselves.


Cheers

[Hyper Shinchan]

But as Doom9 has already pointed out, there are no "applications" to place AC3 in MP4 as a private stream and we don't have any AC3 in MP4 capable "SAP's"

But I look at it this way.... if we don't have the "applications" it's impossible to measure the "user-interest" and if we can't measure the "user-interest" we'll never get manufacturers to build the "SAP's"
I agree with SMD. Why don't anyone make an application to place AC3 in MP4 (for me it's useless, I use AAC, but it seems that for some guys AC3 is really an important codec).
Of course you can also use MKV.... but I don't think that there will be an huge number of MKV standalone players in the future... but maybe I'm wrong.

[Elias]

Yep.... but you've got to start somewhere!

If it had been possible to place AC3 in MP4 way back in say 2002, for all we know it might have helped to kill off AVI ;)Not to sound like an asshole, but you're just wasting your time :) It's really not that important that mp4 can handle AC3 anyway.

[Zero1]

Yep.... but you've got to start somewhere!

If it had been possible to place AC3 in MP4 way back in say 2002, for all we know it might have helped to kill off AVI ;)

Interesting view, but I don't think placing AC3 in MP4 would have been incentive enough to get people to use a new container. I would say that a lot of people just recompress to MP3 in order to keep the filesize down, or it might be that their source is not AC3, for example MPEG-Layer 2 from DVB, in which case AVI was sufficient if they just wanted to mux the original audio. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is/was a larger amount of people re-encoding to some MPEG format than there was AC3, so there wasn't a great call for AC3 capability, and since the majority would use MPEG, they would stick with the "tried and tested" methods. Aside from that, AC3 can also be "hacked" into AVI, and stored no problems at all in MKV, so it sort of eliminates AC3 capability as a point of interest for would be MP4 users.

A lot of the encoders I know, see H.264 as an oppurtunity for a fresh start, that is what I like to think of it as. We know that features such as B-frames and some others are a bit "naughty" for storing in AVI (thus requiring hacks and workarounds) and also VFW limitations (I know of the one frame in, one frame out and Aspect Ratio, are there any other limits with regards to H.264 in AVI?), so I guess the thought is that ASP is pretty much condemned to AVI as the defacto container, with some appearences and MKV when using alternate audio compression or any of the other awesome features, "let's make a fresh start with H.264 and use it's native container... Oh and while we are at it, use AAC too, improve the efficiency of the audio coding". So there are now a few incentives to MP4. Firstly it's the native container, so no hacks, minimal potential problems. You can now use a more efficient audio coding standard (without hacks), and dependant on usage maybe throw in some chapters, AR setting or softsubs.

I appreciate what you are saying though, definately. A lot of DVD rippers love MKV, and some feel very strongly about abandoning MKV, since as it stands MP4 is inferior for their purpose.

It was mentioned somewhere that standalone players are unlikely to use MP4, or maybe the comment was pre-recorded discs are unlikely to use MP4 (I don't remember), but I guess playing back your encodes contained in MP4 is a reasonable expectation. I would expect Nero/KiSS players to do this off the bat, it would be a nice selling point for both the player and Nero's software (please make it happen Nero guys, I'll buy a player for sure :D ).

I think things are fine as they are, no AC3 in MP4 means that MKV has another feature that people will want to use, and help it to grow, and at the same time it helps MP4 stay a "clean" and not have hacks that will cause confusion and/or problems. When I think of MP4, I think of future cross platform compatability, kind of like .MPG (but it has a loooooong way to go before it's usage is so widespread).

I hate to dampen Kolich's hopes, but creating a tool to put AC3 in MP4 would be damaging, because people would get hold of it, and there would be many bastard MP4 files all over the place. Then you will get newbies clogging forums saying their file won't play on their standalone, to which you will explain that the audio needs to be re-encoded. It might seem far fetched, but these "newbies" will end up taking a dislike to MP4 saying it's unstable, buggy, whatever, because they can't get it to play. I've seen it before with regards to MKV. Some people instantly avoid getting the file because it is "a hassle to play", or it "won't work". This is only detrimental to the projects, and good work needs to be encouraged. It actually helps to push industry along believe it or not, for example DivX and XviD. Both teams always push for better quality.

Maybe storing the AC3 as an "attachment" (I forget the proper name), but still have AAC audio as a fallback that wouldn't be so bad, but then again having two audio tracks bloats the filesize somewhat.

On top of that, I think hacking AC3 into MP4 is wasting a developers time, since it's fine in MKV, when they could be adding more useful features, or just getting on with life :)

Seeing bond and Elias' reply was encouraging, I was wondering if I would get a flaming for wanting to keep MP4 spec compliant.

Yes, I would like to keep MP4 files spec compliant, this will also help drive the usage and development for Matroska for users that require other features.


Kolich:
You don't have to answer this, but why does it have to be MP4 and AC3? I can understand keeping the AC3 in order to retain quality (but maybe a high quality AAC encode would sound just as good, forgive me, I'm no audiophile by a longshot).
As for MP4, Haali's splitter also installs MKV support, and it's unlikely that a MP4 containing AC3 would play in a standalone player, unless it perhaps had special add ons or mods like some ASP players do.

[Elias]

but I don't think placing AC3 in MP4 would have been incentive enough to get people to use a new containerExactly. Let's face it: AC3 is quite old today in the technology world, and frankly not worth the sacrifice of breaking specs imho.Yes, I would like to keep MP4 files spec compliant, this will also help drive the usage and development for Matroska for users that require other features.You hit the spot :) Keeping mp4 inferior to Matroska in that sense is a good starting point for keeping Matroska alive, and that I want, because we need a universal container like Matroska. It's important that we have a strong open source container.

SMD: your idea is benevolent in that you want to popularise mp4, but imho you're doing more damage than good.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Interesting view, but I don't think placing AC3 in MP4 would have been incentive enough to get people to use a new container. I would say that a lot of people just recompress to MP3 in order to keep the filesize down, or it might be that their source is not AC3, Agreed... However I think a lot of people start with MP3 audio but, as their skills level improves and/or, they buy an MPEG-4 capable stand-alone player, they move onto AC3 audio

...for example MPEG-Layer 2 from DVB, in which case AVI was sufficient if they just wanted to mux the original audio. Lets not forget you can find AC3 audio in DVB transmissions!

Just to let you guys know.... Not so long ago I suggested to a Sigma chip-set software developer that they add support for MPEG-2 video with MP2 audio within MP4.... Needless to say this suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did support for MP3 audio within MP4


Cheers

[bond]

i will personally visit everyone who writes a tool for placing ac3 in mp4 and beat em up

its simply plain nonsense

if someone releases such a braindead tool people will use it and it will hurt mp4 definitely more than it helps, as the point of mp4 is interoperability

if you want to combine ac3 with avc and need to use something more "official" than mkv, better use .mpg, thats more acceptable than introducing ac3 in mp4

[Elias]

i will personally visit everyone who writes a tool for placing ac3 in mp4 and beat em upI second that :D bond is my new mp4-superhero!i will personally visit everyone who writes a tool for placing ac3 in mp4 and beat em upIn my opinion, that's not good either; it will hurt mpg just as it will with mp4, because mpg is also made for interoperability (although in this case, mpg has pretty much become immortal in that aspect).

Seriously guys, use Matroska or nothing else when it comes to mixing different codec types. That's the best advice I can give you.

[Zero1]

Agreed... However I think a lot of people start with MP3 audio but, as their skills level improves and/or, they buy an MPEG-4 capable stand-alone player, they move onto AC3 audio

Lets not forget you can find AC3 audio in DVB transmissions!

Just to let you guys know.... Not so long ago I suggested to a Sigma chip-set software developer that they add support for MPEG-2 video with MP2 audio within MP4.... Needless to say this suggestion fell on deaf ears, as did support for MP3 audio within MP4


Cheers

True with the AC3 in DVB. I guess I overlooked it since I've yet to dump a transmission with AC3 (know any freeview channels that might be interesting to look at?)

I'm gobsmacked that they shunned MP3 (I believe it is perfectly spec compliant), especially when you consider it's widespread usage. It's probably the best known audio compression in the world what with MP3 players and the publicity from copyright. As for MPEG-2 video and MP2 audio... DVB. I am quite surprised with this too.

Hmm, I can't think of a good reason why they would reject these suggestions, did they say anything interesting?

[SeeMoreDigital]

You guys better come round then.... ;)

[bond]

In my opinion, that's not good either; it will hurt mpg just as it will with mp4, because mpg is also made for interoperability (although in this case, mpg has pretty much become immortal in that aspect).it will definitely not hurt .mpg, as:
1) mpg is, next to mp4, officially defined by mpeg as container for avc
2) ac3 in mpg is widely used, eg on dvd, meaing lots of mpg parser already support ac3 (whereas i doubt even one mp4 parser exists worldwide to handle ac3 in mp4)

[Zero1]

it will definitely not hurt .mpg, as:
1) mpg is, next to mp4, officially defined by mpeg as container for avc
2) ac3 in mpg is widely used, eg on dvd, meaing lots of mpg parser already support ac3 (whereas i doubt even one mp4 parser exists worldwide to handle ac3 in mp4)

It makes good sense, already AVC is being broadcast in MPEG transport streams (I might be confusing something here or not though, i'm not 100% sure), and you of course have AC3 in DVD audio.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hmm, I can't think of a good reason why they would reject these suggestions, did they say anything interesting?Yes.... they were rejected due to lack of interest :eek:

To me it's pretty obvious "the interest" would "be there" once people knew such an implementation was possible. And that tools such as YAMB/MP4Box make muxing a breeze. I also pointed out that prospective users would find "chapter navigation" an massive temptation, especially as they are so easy to create!

Needless to say I provided Sigma with some MPEG-2 + MP2 in MP4 samples, some with chapter points.

.... Lack of interest.... what tosh. Lack of imagination, motivation and forward thinking.... more like :(


Cheers

[BigDid]

... we might see AC3 (or AC3 Plus) audio ...
Hi,

Can't find infos (with google) on AC3 plus, can you elaborate? (or PM if OT) Thanks

Did

[Hyper Shinchan]

if someone releases such a braindead tool people will use it and it will hurt mp4 definitely more than it helps, as the point of mp4 is interoperability
It's happened at least twice and I don't think that it hurts anyone.
1) Apple Lossless.
2) Ogg Vorbis (and I've read also Theora, but I haven't ever tested it).
About Apple Lossless it's played at least from MPlayer, and Vorbis in MP4 is played at least the combination of halii splitter+radlight decoder. It will break the interoperability, but at this moment there are only few (commercial) players able to handle for example MPEG-1 video in MP4 and it's a part of the specs (also if I don't understand why it's not included in the ISMA profiles, another example of failed interoperability). Also I-Tunes tags aren't a part of the specs, but actually it's the only good way to tag mp4.
I don't understand what's so wrong about AC3 in MP4, in the end (of course I won't use it, for my ears AAC is good enough).

[bond]

just because one or two players support something means nothing...

[Hyper Shinchan]

just because one or two players support something means nothing...
Alos the fact that some millions of mobile phones supports amr and h.263 in a format derivated from MP4 means nothing?
O.K. at that point you are making a new standard and it's useless, but I think like people think "MP4 is too limited for my purpose for this reason it sucks"

[Zero1]

Alos the fact that some millions of mobile phones supports amr and h.263 in a format derivated from MP4 means nothing?
O.K. at that point you are making a new standard and it's useless, but I think like people think "MP4 is too limited for my purpose for this reason it sucks"

True, which is why if MP4 doesn't meet their requirements they should use MKV rather than requesting hacks etc.

Rightly or wrongly, you can think of MP4 being the modern day equivalent to MPG, and MKV as to AVI. If MPG is no good for people, they would just use AVI instead, and MPG still gets used for it's interoperbility. If we go putting vorbis, AC3 or whatever in MP4 you might as well throw interoperability out of the window. I appreciate some people don't care about such things, but others do. But even if MP4 had AC3, what advantages would it have over MKV? Barely any, the main advantage is the hope of this interoperability.

[dimzon]

i will personally visit everyone who writes a tool for placing ac3 in mp4 and beat em up
:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

[Elias]

it will definitely not hurt .mpg, as:
1) mpg is, next to mp4, officially defined by mpeg as container for avc
2) ac3 in mpg is widely used, eg on dvd, meaing lots of mpg parser already support ac3 (whereas i doubt even one mp4 parser exists worldwide to handle ac3 in mp4)Yeah I knew that... what I meant was: how many people do you know (non-tech savvy i.e.) which have an AVC filter installed? Most of them don't even know how to decode MPEG-2 video in mpg; good luck with AVC ;)

[bond]

O.K. at that point you are making a new standard and it's useless, but I think like people think "MP4 is too limited for my purpose for this reason it sucks"if mp4 is too limited for what people want to do, they should simply use a better container, period

[SeeMoreDigital]

if mp4 is too limited for what people want to do, they should simply use a better container, periodIt could be argued that the MP4 container is only "too limited" because nobody has got round to developing some decent open-source "private stream" tools!

I say "decent" because (in my opinion), if we can't encourage some knowledgeable people to start developing some quality "private stream" tools soon.... I can see Apples developers fcuking-up the MP4 container totally :eek:

[videomixer9]

I bet MP4 specs were made to not support AC3 to make ppl use AAC instead, whyever this doesn't work for some ppl and their SPDIF connections, but maybe they should consider buying soundcards that are not onboard or totally crappy. Every lousy Creative and Terratec card I had so far seen had no problems outputting surround AAC correctly mapped to SPDIF, maybe if you decoder ffilter was fucked up, but with good software it worked 100%. Besides at least for Creative it seems that the drivers get sure to output whatever is needed, I've never seen my amp not being able to sync to the cards output, no matter what kind of things I threw at it, even if you choose SPDIF output on two different apps one outputting 6 channels and another 2 channel audio it's perfectly mapped.

I think from the consumer point we'd need way more specific containers, it's awful to see ppl think that avi means that video inside is DivX or Xvid and the audio being MP3, or maybe AC3 but that's already one level up under the noobs if you ask me. Besides MP4 already got one problem, there's already tons of idiots running around thinking this is video only for PSP or iPods maybe ...

the one container for anything concept seems to be a wish from the masses of ppl that buy crap that's called standalone mpeg players, producers save each penny and support the minimum of needed stuff. Effectively development is held back by those incompetent companies. Not even to mention that the cheapest TV output chip for PC seems to be better than the crap built into those boxes. Just check out those modern devices, it's cheapass PC components, even the drives are often plain IDE drives as IDE controllers are cheapest thing you can get, and some embedded processor running regular software that barely manages to work with the processor power inside. I'm still amazed about idiots dissing quite high quality tv encoder chips from pcs and claim the crap those standalones output would be any better, maybe just because it came with SCART which has nothing much to do with quality.

Just keep mp4 reduced to MPEG4 stuff, that'd be the best thing to do, as the name already implies many would expect MPEG4 to be in MP4 and not AC3 or DTS or Vorbis or whatever else. Would be even okay imo to keep MP3 out of MP4.

[bond]

the point of mp4 is ensuring interoperability. extensive useage of private streams harms this major point of the container

if you want to combine lots of different streams, use a container that was designed for this: matroska
if you are additionally anal about the technical advantages of .mp4, use its big brother .mov (also a multipurpose container)

thread closed