Other way around: Convert LPCM to DTS-HD MA, How?

[tijgert]

There are tons of people wanting to convert DTS-HD to LPCM to play on their PS3's.
Me however, I want to convert LPCM to DTS-HD (MA) for two reasons:

1. So I can have lossless audio on my rips and still enjoy a much smaller audio size than with LPCM.
2. Since I use coaxial outputs and not HDMI, LPCM is only sent to me amp in stereo. DTS-HD (MA) is sent out as DTS and is the only way I can enjoy HQ audio.

So, I am looking for a tool/guide to convert LPCM audio to DTS-HD (MA) (not RA).

Is there such a thing? Does anyone have this knowledge?

[kypec]

There are no free DTS/DTS-MA encoders available. Unless you are willing to spend thousands of $$$ then you're out of luck :(
BTW, you may enjoy HQ audio also with Dolby Digital a.k.a. AC3 for which the free encoders are available (Aften)

[mp3dom]

Yes, aften is free and an Ac3 at 640 Kbps is valid quality-wise. It's not lossless but still very good.
There are only commercial dts-HD encoders. One of this is the dts-HD Master Audio Suite which cost 1500 $ and it's a standalone application made directly by dts. There are also similar third party version for DAW (Neyrinck) and Compressor (Minnetonka). Anyway the dts-HD MAS-SAS by dts is the most complete as it covers all the possible audio options.

[tijgert]

I was told that for those programs to encode LPCM to DTS-HD the audio stream needs to be supplied in their resepctive separate channels.

I can extract the .wav file containing the 5.1 streams, but how do I split that up again into the 6 separate channels?

(Minnetonka apparantly doesn't support 64bit...)

[mp3dom]

For splitting I think you can use any audio editor that supports interleaved waves (SoundForge for example). It could be done with Avisynth and probably eac3to (but I've never tried it).

[kypec]

eac3to.exe multichannel.wav mono.wavs

[tijgert]

With that one command I managed to split the LPCM file into 6 streams as I wanted, quick and easy, but I wasn't finished...

I felt I was almost there except for one small detail... I extracted the LPCM audio with TSmuxer and it was written to the drive as a 4GB file and a 1.6GB file, I then learned that TSmuxer does not support files >4GB.

TSmuxer seemed (so I read) to have some difficulties with extra bytes or other, making the wav streams nonconform certain specs. Eac3to was reported to be far better for extracting audio. I didn't know the proper command for extracting and converting the audio with eac3to, but I found a usefull GUI http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=141829.

However I ran into an unexpected situation.
The total size of the 6 files extacted with eac3to is 200MB smaller than the 2 files combined that TSmuxer got for me.

How is this possible? What should I do?

[tebasuna51]

... What should I do?
Forget tsmuxer to extract, use only for mux.

[tijgert]

So, the task is done. I am now able to convert those pesky large HDMI-only LPCM streams into just as good DTS-HD MA.
But now the question arises... why do studio's even bother with LPCM if DTS-HD (MA) is just as good but more versatile and smaller? (versatile in that my old Onkyo speaks DTS but has no HDMI).

Is there any reason left why the end user (me) would prefer LPCM over DTS-HD MA??

[mp3dom]

Some previous decoders decode dts-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD in a different way than LPCM multich, also, with LPCM you don't need to pay 1500$ for the software (in the past, the encoder cost was higher). Again, not all decoders play dts-HD/Dolby TrueHD (i.e. the old amplifier that supports classic dts/dolby), decoding only the lossy 'core' part.

[Ghitulescu]

... why do studio's even bother with LPCM if DTS-HD (MA) is just as good but more versatile and smaller?...

Why do studios prefer issuing DVD-videos in the perimated MPEG-2 format instead of using the space-oriented divx/xvid or even RealMedia? Why do they spend money in issuing a BluRay movie on a BD50 (VC-1) when it looks "so identical" on a DVD5 (H.264)?
While rhetoric questions, an answer was already given by the industry: you can download only MP3s from paid services (very few uncompressed audios are available)..., since MP3 is smaller and more versatile, but "so identical" :rolleyes:

[ramicio]

Because uncompressed audio is more compatible with everything. They also fill up full BD discs because it DOES matter. It looks similar if you're not looking for a difference, but in motions scenes, there is crap with high compression, reds become pixellated, and they want to keep film grain. I can't even listen to mp3s anymore, or any lossy-compressed format.

[Ghitulescu]

It was a rhetorical question :p

Besides, the reason why a studio pick up a certain format has nothing or little to do with its technical characteristics, more with law compliance, DRM, licences, valid (and pending) standards, internal policy and so on. They also discovered that is much cheaper to lobby/bribe/impose a standard on which they hold the licences (it's a contradiction in terms, but who cares?) and let China manufacture (and pay for the licences) than to manufacture themselves. Easy money and no responsibility at all.

Because uncompressed audio is more compatible with everything.I was once looking for a portable player. I don't trust eBay for such things and I went checking every shop I knew. All the devices I've seen and tested could play MP3 (most of them up to 320kbps). Few could play divx movies too. Only 2 or 3 could play flac, ogg & co. but none of them could play WAV. I don't think the situation changed since then, at least not in DE. Uncompressed (lossless) is not supported on consumer standalones. Lossless (bit-perfect) is the nightmare of the content industry.

[ramicio]

You're talking about a player, not a decoder. I had an OLD pioneer receiver that had lights for PCM, MLP, MPEG, DTS, AC3, and others. Maybe things have changed anymore, but PCM is just the root of everything else, and internally, stuff gets turned to PCM a lot of the time before being turned to analog. 99% of products that I've seen that decode FLAC are crap, and can only do so up to a certain quality (16/44.1). Lossless compression and PCM just have no place as the starting format in the portable player world, where it's priority to fit as much onto a player as possible. Apple has been the exception to this.

[Ghitulescu]

A decoded AC-3/DTS/MP3/you name it (to PCM) is still an AC-3/DTS/etc. as the damage was done at the compression stage (to dolby, dts, mp3). If you can't feed your AVR with native PCM, then buy another one (HDMI should be a must).

[Flanker-B]

I'm trying a cracked copy of dts-HD Master Audio Suite now (before I decide to buy a legal one - I don't support piracy) and i discovered dts-hd ma preset doesnt support bitrates above standard dts (dts core). DTS-HD HR preset supports up to basically the same bitrate as in uncompressed audio. I'm trying to reauthor a blu-ray movie which isn't avaliable in Croatia (atleast with croatian subtitles) using multiavchd, but I discovered that it's tsmuxer crashes because of lpcm track in the source mkv file. I extracted the lpcm audio using a gui for eac3to into 6 single channel files and now I created dtshd file (5.1) with dts-hd hr preset at 3000 and something kbps. I'll try to mux it into the blu ray.

[mindbomb]

no, don't ever use dts hd hr.
it is lossy.

trust me, stick to 1509 dts hd ma for most things; generally, you should only switch to something lower when the number of channels is real low, like mono or stereo.

[rik1138]

Yeah, always use DTS-HD MA. The bitrate is only for the 'Core' stream, which is the exact same stream that would be on a DVD (for compatibility), but the lossless side of the stream (the Master Audio part of it) is not limited to bitrate. Since it's lossless, it will use whatever bitrate is required to keep it lossless. I've seen DTS-HD MA streams exceed 7000 kbps at times. It's not something you can set, the encoder will tell you after it's done what bitrate it used (look in the .log file). (It'll give you a peak and average number).

And, regardless of future intentions, admitting you are using pirated software will probably get you banned here... It seems unlikely that you'd spend $1500+ on a piece of software just to make personal copies of blu-rays, which is what it sounds like you are doing.