Audio Questions

[Hiro2k]

Hi I am a bit confused about all the different audio formats and what they do, maybe someone can help me understand this better.

I want to know the difference between the Dobly Digital Sourund Sound, and the DTS audio format that is also on DVD. I also would like to know what is the new format called AAC and what is it used for.

Also, what hardware do you need in order to use the AC3 5.1 Souround Sound. I have a Soundblaster Live 5.1 and am using the AVS500B Altec Langsing Speakers (http://www.alteclansing.com/product_details.asp?pID=AVS500B&sID=1) Is this all i need in order to have souround sound?

I know these are very newbish questions, but I would really like so clear answers. Thanks In advance.

[DJ Bobo]

Dolby Digital (Alias AC3), DTS & AAC are audio compression formats like MP3, MP2, ogg, etc

AAC is the newest industry codec and isn't used on DVD. It should give the best quality among all industry codecs and is MPEG4 compliant.

Dolby Digital is *THE* standard audio codec used on DVD, with typically 192kbps for Stereo sound and 384 or 448kbps for 5.1 sound. But it can go up to 640kbps

DTS is the deluxe audio codec for DVD. Actually, it's not better than Dolby Digital, but it is always used with a very high bitrate, typically 768kbps for 5.1 sound, that's why most people will prefer a DTS version of a DVD (it sounds slightly better only because of the higher bitrate used though)

Your card is suited for 5.1 sound but not the speakers you mentionned: you'll need a 5.1 sound system and not a 4.1.

[Hiro2k]

I now want to know what my soundcard does with my 4.1 setup. Right now in Windows XP i can't get the other 2 speakers to work without setting it to 5.1 speaker setup in the audio menu even though it is a 4.1 setup, is this normal with 4.1 speakers? The reason i ask is because I don't get sound when i set it to quadrophonic speakers or surround sound speakers.

[DJ Bobo]

I think, someone else will explain this to you, as I don't have any clue why it's so... sorry

[Slogra]

Did you know that new sb live drivers were released a few days ago? I haven't tried them myself, so they might as well suck. I'm gonna try them soon.

For dolby digital sound you basicly have 2 options:

1) Let the soundcard decode it to 5.1 channels. Your speakers are just 4 channel, so you'll probably lose the center channel and the bass channel, which is not good. I'm not sure about this as i don't have a sb live 5.1 (just a sb live 1024).
2) Let the software DVD player decode the sound to a certain number of channels. You can probably choose 4 channel with WinDVD/PowerDVD. I think this might be the best option for you.

[budbrain]

Originally posted by DJ Bobo


AAC is the newest industry codec and isn't used on DVD. It should give the best quality among all industry codecs and is MPEG4 compliant.




Well, thats not really correct, MPC is still the best format out there for lossy encoding today.

[DJ Bobo]

@ budbrain
What are you talking about?!
First, MPC isn't an industry codec
Second, MPC is not even better than MP3.
Third, MPC is quite old now, is rarely used and has died before it was born, since it can't compete with MP3.

I was talking about industry codecs, and AAC MPEG-4 is the last one and the most optimized one among them.

[budbrain]

OMG..
You don´t know what you are talking about, mpc is today the best lossy encoder out there. I don´t have time to argue about this so i recomend you to take a look at www.hydrogenaudio.org before you claim that mpc sucks. The fact is that mp3 is an shitty encoder compared to mpc.

Check out hydrogenaudio and learn before you claim things you don´t understand.

[DJ Bobo]

They say what they want, MP3 still better. Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll have to forget that MPC of yours. *If* there is one codec that will kick the ass of MP3, than it will be ogg or aac, but never MPC! MPC is at best as good as MP3!

MPC has no future at all!

[budbrain]

The funny fact is that you don´t know what the hell you are talking about =) LOL...
Youre that kind of person that says mp3 @ 128kbps is CD QUALITY.
I guess you have never heard of ABX testing? well before claiming complete nonsense at the forum and make a fool out of yourself DO IT, atleast try some testsamples like fatboy.wav and compare or something.

[DJ Bobo]

Mister budbrain, the brain that knows it all! :p
1) where have I said that 128k MP3 is CD quality?
2) is MPC used in the video world? and is it an industry codec anyway, since that thread was about industry codecs! NO!
3) may I ask you: have you (!) seriously compared MP3 & MPC? because from the tests I done, MPC was at best (!) as good as MP3 (for fair testing, you'll have to use Lame --alt-preset xyz) and most of the time MP3 was clearly better! (MPC is most of the time a tick muffled in comparison to MP3)
4) have you known that MPC is a derivate of MP2? so how can a derivate of MP2 be better than MP3, even logically?
5) you're the one making a fool out of yourself, coming out of nowhere, defending an outdated codec, that is in addition to that not even considered in the video world, and you're the one who's not even knowing what he's talking about, since I never said that 128k was CD quality and obviously you havn't compared with Lame MP3 and especially with the preset --alt-preset for most fair comparison!

[budbrain]

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
Mister budbrain, the brain that knows it all! :p
1) where have I said that 128k MP3 is CD quality?
2) is MPC used in the video world? and is it an industry codec anyway, since that thread was about industry codecs! NO!
3) may I ask you: have you (!) seriously compared MP3 & MPC? because from the tests I done, MPC was at best (!) as good as MP3 (for fair testing, you'll have to use Lame --alt-preset xyz) and most of the time MP3 was clearly better! (MPC is most of the time a tick muffled in comparison to MP3)
4) have you known that MPC is a derivate of MP2? so how can a derivate of MP2 be better than MP3, even logically?
5) you're the one making a fool out of yourself, coming out of nowhere, defending an outdated codec, that is in addition to that not even considered in the video world, and you're the one who's not even knowing what he's talking about, since I never said that 128k was CD quality and obviously you havn't compared with Lame MP3 and especially with the preset --alt-preset for most fair comparison!

Outdated?
How can it be outdated when its newer than mp3, far better and more frequently updated?
How come so many audiophiles (for example @ hydrogenaudio.org )who sticks to compressed audio choose mpc, Because its worse than mp3? IS THAT LOGIC?
Even the developer (DIBROM) of the --alt-presets for lame mp3 admits that mpc is the best lossy encoding known to man.

MPC is not built upon mp2 the way you think at all.
Take a day off and learn what MPC is for real, because you haven´t understood what it is.

[DJ Bobo]

So frequently used?! don't make me laugh! far far more people are using MP3 (almost all!). Just make a small tour on popular sharing tools and tell me how much people are sharing MP3s and how much MPC :p

And yes outdated! there was a period where MPC was better than MP3, but that time is over, there isn't only Fraunhofer encoders anymore!

the audiophiles prefer MPC?! don't make me laugh! if it sounds to me worse, why should an audiophile find it better?! or do you have another weird definition for audiophiles? or do you mean a specific class of audiohiles? :p
MPC far better?! (with a "far" ladies & gents! :eek: ) why does it sound to me worse & muffled if it is far better?! don't make me laugh!

And where did Dibrom said that MPC is better?! if he said that, then may be to a previous period time, because I compared directly using alt-preset and the MP3s were definitely better!

Go and make jokes somewhere else!
An MPC discussion doesn't belong here anyway! or is there a directshow filter for MPC? :p

[budbrain]

Yes dibrom and everyone else still says its better, BECAUSE IT IS! you haven´t even ABX tested (well, you don´t even know what it is do you?)

oh? and you haven´t heard of testsamples like fatboy.wav wich proves the weakness of mp3?? i thought so, even with --alt-preset insane they sound like shit. There are many samples of this type..

I guess your mpc:s did sound like shit because of the clipprotect in the plugin was enabled (or mayby let winamp do the equalizing ..hah! Lol)

If you don´t believe that audiophiles use mpc, then welcome to the real audioworld and ask yourself
www.hydrogenaudio.org

end of discussion

[budbrain]

oh,
one more thing, if you dont think there are any mpc:s shared welcome to the DC hub:

hub.aquaudio.com:411

[Hiro2k]

Well MPC is not an Idustry Codec. AAC is MPEG4 Compliant and thus makes it probly the best lossy codec there is for video.

I don't doubt that MPC sounds better than MP3, many things do. But I'll stick to my OGG files in Video and my Music in MP3 (compatibility).

So Stop this flam war, it's all based on preferance.

[DJ Bobo]

Mister budbrain!
1) I don't need ABX testing to tell if it sounds better or worse! it's as if you were demanding that I use a microscope every time I use a desinfector, to see whether there is still some microbs or not -.-
But I do blind listen tests, by loading all files in winamp, and clicking "next" so many times, that I forget the order of the files :p
2) I never liked that fatboy.wav anyway, since it buts my head! and on that particular file, I can't hear any difference between the wav, the mp3 & the mpc file.
3) And the mpc files sound like shit, because they ARE like shit. Clip protect wasn't on & Equalizing wasn't done by WinAmp :sly: (I wanted to use a finger, but there wasn't a finger symbol -.-)
4) I don't know which audiophiles you're talking about, I'm sure there is many freaks like you who are defending their MPC shit. Among all files I tested, there wasn't *ANY* one which MPC version sounded better! not a single MPC was better than the MP3 version!
And I don't think audiophiles are comparing files in the 128kbps-192kbps range, so this is not realistic anymore, and MPC may take the advantadge at very high bitrates, as it can go over 320kbps, but again the differences won't be hearable but only measurable! :p
5) I never said there is no people sharing MPCs, I said compare how much people are sharing MP3 and how much are sharing MPC. The difference is indeed huuuuuge! most people are using MP3, what some freaks do or not do won't change that, I saw even people sharing lossless compressed files -.-

Keep dreaming in your "realworld" as you call it!

[budbrain]

sorry to hear that your ears are totaly damaged then :D

[diji1]

DJBobo : ... on that particular file, I can't hear any difference between the wav, the mp3 & the mpc file.

it was interesting seeing who had the better argument here, but then i realised DJ needs new speakers, so i guess you lose. no difference indeed ! :D what are you listening thru - walkman headphones ?? you're clock radio ??

[DJ Bobo]

You know what, you're all getting on my nerves, always making suppositions about people you don't know.
I have a SONY stereo system, not the super class, but it's a very good system, so when I tell I don't hear a difference I don't hear a difference! all of them sound weird, are extremely annoying and make my head wanna explode!
You're talking as if all people have high end systems of thousands of dollars. Now I tell you something: there is very few people having such expensive things right!

And you budbrain, you gotta hurry and make some comparisons on "normal" audio tracks, one time with the --radio preset of MPC and then the equivalent --alt-preset of Lame and then tell me which is better! MPC sounds definitely muffled in comparison to MP3! so stop teasing my ass!
With --xtreme you can't even compare, they all sound the same!