Re-encoding DTS-1536 to DTS-768 ???

[powerbala]

Is it possible to down sample a DTS-1536 bitrate to DTS-768?

One of my DVD has DTS-1536 and that file itself takes 1.7GB and I would like to down sample it 768.

Any suggestions??

[Snowknight26]

eac3to (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=125966)

[powerbala]

Thx a lot Snowknight26..!

I will try this right away....! :)

[siella]

I tried but when i reencode Dts audio 1536 to 768 i have the same size

I tried diffirent method. But i didnt solve

for example i muxed dts to wav and encode as dts (surcode)

[n0mag!c]

I tried but when i reencode Dts audio 1536 to 768 i have the same size

I tried diffirent method. But i didnt solve

for example i muxed dts to wav and encode as dts (surcode)
You must run "eac3to in.dts out.dts" after surcode to remove zero padding.

[madshi]

Instead of transcoding to 786kbps DTS I'd recommend to transcode to 640kbps AC3 instead. Quality should be similar or even slightly better with AC3.

[NanoBot]

You must run "eac3to in.dts out.dts" after surcode to remove zero padding.

You might also try to use "compact dts .cpt" as output format and rename the file to dts after encoding. Afaik this also produces DTS files without padding bytes.

C.U. NanoBot

[raquete]

Instead of transcoding to 786kbps DTS I'd recommend to transcode to 640kbps AC3 instead. Quality should be similar or even slightly better with AC3.

i never did this kind of changes but who knows in the future to save space....is one very good idea.
magnific hint madshi. :)

[quantum]

Instead of transcoding to 786kbps DTS I'd recommend to transcode to 640kbps AC3 instead. Quality should be similar or even slightly better with AC3.

Interesting. So you think in general 640kbps AC3 (particularly the Aften encoder in eac3to) is equal to or better than 768kbps DTS? Also, if you had to go from lossless to either 1536 DTS or 640 AC3, for your own use, which would you choose?

[tebasuna51]

Here say how DTS-1500, DD-448 and AAC-320 don't have very much differences:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3324-2007_tcm6-53801.pdf

I always prefer ac3-640 to dts-768. If we have a original dts-1500 we can preserve it, but if we need transcode I chose ac3-640:
similar quality, less space, free encoder and more compatibility.

[quantum]

Here say how DTS-1500, DD-448 and AAC-320 don't have very much differences...

Thanks. I also found this article:
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/dolby-vs-dts.html

The article avoids making any conclusions, but I did find something interesting:

"When the DTS soundtrack is encoded at the highest bit-rate of 1.5Mbps defined by this DTS standard, DTS claims that it is capable of achieving indistinguishable audio fidelity from its original un-coded source content.

Similar claims come from Dolby Labs, namely that when Dolby Digital is encoded at the maximum 640 kbps defined by this standard, it is capable of achieving similar audio perceptual transparency results, in that the listener would not be able to distinguish between the original un-coded source and the output from a coded soundtrack."

[Midzuki]

Here say how DTS-1500, DD-448 and AAC-320 don't have very much differences:
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3324-2007_tcm6-53801.pdf

That URL is outdated, now the document "EBU Evaluations of Multichannel Audio Codecs" is found at

http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3324.pdf

<OT>
The Internet is solid...

... solid as quicksand. :devil: :D
</OT>