UpmiX: tool to automate stereo to 5.1 conversion (v0.71)

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by kempfand
The new version will be published when we checked this 'channel-switch' ... still aiming for Thursday ...

@ daphy: same heat here south of river Rhine (Basel) :D

And Thursday it is........... !!!
Working like a charm......

An example CD is uploaded to
alt.binaries.cd.image.other and
alt.binaries.sounds and
alt.binaries.sounds.dts

Give it a try.... this improved KpeX method (and yes, the left <> right problem is solved too) rockzzzzzz !!!!

@ SallyDog : Thanks for the waiting :) Hope you can do some testing and provide us with feedback !
@ DAPHY : same heat here at the end of river Rhine :D


EoH

[SallyDog]

@EoH

I've already downloaded the RAR and printed your guide. I will try to test tonight (10 hours from now) and give you some feedback tomorrow.

Thanks to the team for the hard work :D


SallyDog

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by kempfand
OK. The big wait is over :rolleyes: :)

EoH and myself tried to improve the current method. In summary, it applies reverb ;) to all channels (except LFE).

The new method is called ExpaKpeX (derived from the words Expansion & KpeX). We did quite some listening tests to come up with a good reverb, but fell free to adjust this to your taste. Opinions & constructive feedbeck will be very welcome.

The 2 attached files fully automate conversion of multiple stereo WAV's to 5.1 AC3. The freeware AC3enc.dll is used. We also did some listening comparison to compare to commercial AC3 encoders (SoftEncode, Digigram, Scenarist's AC3Enc) and to DTS (SurCode), and we feel that the listening quality is way superior when the professional encoders are used (no discredit of ac3enc.dll, as it's free). We suggest you check it out yourself.

You can find more info on the theme, including a complete walk-through (for AC3 and DTS), in the guide, which EoH put together:

URL removed by EoH on 08-09-2003

Enough said, hope you enjoy.

Andreas



<snip>

Both batchfiles are Rarred and can be download here :
http://REMOVED

I removed the link, they are now placed online here.....
see further on in the thread......

EoH

[KpeX]

OK, guys, remember that I do appreciate your efforts.
Your method continually crashes right now, when I have time I'll figure out what's wrong with the batch file.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
OK, guys, I'm going to try as hard as I can to respect rule four here. Bear with me, and remember that I do appreciate your efforts.

1.
that's directly from your site...Wait...you took almost my exact script, added reverb, and you've expanded it to the limit? Come on, you have to admit that's more than a little bit of an exaggeration. Your method continually crashes right now, when I have time I'll figure out what's wrong with the batch file.

2. Have you read rule 6 or the audio FAQ? What are you thinking distributing Soft Encode and BeSweet with the .rar on your website? I don't think that Soft Encode was freeware last time I checked, and although BeSweet is, I'm pretty sure you need DSPGuru's permission to distribute, which I doubt you received. I never distributed anyone else's software on my site or in my zip archives, only my scripts, especially not payware programs.

I'm not sure where this thread is going lately, but this was not a good idea IMO.

Yep, to its limit, because there is not much more to add anyway, now is there ? We added reverb, we repaired the fault that was in it in the first place (left<>right) and it now works and the results sound excellent.
Crashes... ? Not once here !!! Did you read the instructions anyway ?
Did you use the script Kempfand published here ?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the script, when you follow the instructions ... ! This looks like an attempt to put us into discredit. I don't like that at all !
You say you try to respect rule 4 ? Well, the tone of your message sure doesn't show respect at all !

And if you want to discuss my website and what's on it, you can send me a PM or an email . I will not go into a discussion here, because the website is not on Doom9 and a discussion about the site has nothing to do with the thread. Discussion about how we adjusted your script, OK.
Discussion about how the results sound now ? OK !

But for the rest....this is not the place and I sure don't like or need a "public correction" from you. You can contact me privately.
If you're upset because your nickname is on the site, no problem, I can remove it in a second.......

EoH

[pacohaas]

Here is just the batch files in zip format that kempfand asked me to upload. (had to change from rar file cause the board only allows zip archives)

[daphy]

Hi folks,

I did some tests yesterday evening, only a few (remember-> the heat) but one thing that I could definintivly not confirm is that any program crashes:

@ KpeX
please check your system one more time and post your results again, I can´t imagine what could crash there if you use the paths discribted in the guide.
The only thing I noticed is that you do need much space on your hard disk, much more than I had expected -> some files couldn´t be writen complete - maybe this is the reason the encoder crashes because of rough size differences (-> the LFE is always a few bits smaller first I fear this makes trouble to surcode/SoftEncode, but it wont):rolleyes:

The sound itself is real good, transparent (L-R on the right place now :D), you get a real feeling of the room.
To judge whether it´s better than the former method I have to do more tests. For me the DTS-Part is the most interesting piece of this game. But I´ll feed my KISS Player with some ISO AC3 this afternoon.

@ pacohaas
do we need this files, I found some with the same name in the paket of EOH, I´m at work so I can´t compare those batches :confused:

@ all
work together not against each other - this will help us all ;)


CYA Daphy

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by kempfand
Daphy, Batch files:
- The ones posted here call the freeware ac3enc.dll
- The ones in EoH's package prepare for DTS and SoftEncode coding

Best wishes,
Andreas

Yep and there are already major changes, because KpeX (and thus we too) obviously forgot that there are still zillions of people who work with Windows 95, 98 and ME.
And on those OS's you won't find a file called "CMD.exe".
Simple replacing by "Command.com" doesn't work !
So I had to rewrite the complete batch.....
There are now versions for Win XP and 2K (posted here)
and for 95,98,ME (which will be posted on my site and here when the guide is ready !)

Because the only thing left from the original KpeX method are the .eq files, I also removed KpeX's name from the method. Of course in the guide I still reference to his work. Without his first setup, we would probably never had heard of SOX.exe !
It's now called : the SAD5.1 method :D
Stereo to Ac3 or Dts 5.1 !

kind regards,

EoH

[SallyDog]

@EoH

I tried out the new method (DTS only) last night and was quite pleased. No problems at all with the batch file.

Burned a cd with the same song using the new method and your ambi method. While I still prefer the ambi method, I LOVE the speed of the new process.

Volume on the new method was not as load as using ambi, but I will tweak the batch this weekend and experiment some more.

Any timeframe on updating the scripts to 32 bit? :D

As always, thanks for the efforts you and the rest of the "team" have made.

SallyDog

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by SallyDog

Any timeframe on updating the scripts to 32 bit? :D

SallyDog

ROTFL !!!!!!

Well..... before December the 31th !!

:devil: :devil: :devil:

grtz,

EoH

[sawyer]

hi guys great projetct
can somebody post a working link to the new guide as the one above does'nt seem to be working.

thanks
sawyer:(

[KpeX]

1. SAD5.1 method batch-file still doesn't work; yes, my paths are correct. If I have time I'll just add reverb to my batch file. I don't understand the need for the complexity ( 3 directories, lots of temporary files, etc. )

2. I doubt this method could be adapted for Win9x. The batch language is totally different.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
1. SAD5.1 method batch-file still doesn't work; yes, my paths are correct. If I have time I'll just add reverb to my batch file. I don't understand the need for the complexity ( 3 directories, lots of temporary files, etc. )

2. I doubt this method could be adapted for Win9x. The batch language is totally different.

@1 : you're the only one where it doesn't work till now..... strange !

@2 : that's why I completely rewrote it ! Works like a charm.....

EoH

[Dark-Cracker]

why do u made 2 step for the sox command line ?

using first : -c2 -c1 (to create a mono file)
and after : reverb xxxx

why don't u apply these 2 parameters only in 1 command this will avoid to 2 x the .wav filesize.

and what is the usefull of this line ?

-c1 -c1 for the LFE wav file ? why don't u use a rename command ? i think there is no modification of the file.

Bye.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by Dark-Cracker
why do u made 2 step for the sox command line ?

using first : -c2 -c1 (to create a mono file)
and after : reverb xxxx

I can answer this one : because it just didn't work !
We tried that in all its variations, but it didn't....



why don't u apply these 2 parameters only in 1 command this will avoid to 2 x the .wav filesize.


See above.....

On the other hand...... it works. The whole batch file works.
Isn't that the only thing that counts ?
I mean : are these errors ? No ! Messy coding ? Yes !
Endresult ? > The same..... So who cares ?



and what is the usefull of this line ?

-c1 -c1 for the LFE wav file ? why don't u use a rename command ? i think there is no modification of the file.

Bye.

This one is for you Kempfand :)

EoH

[Eye of Horus]

This whole process was tested by me (after the rewriting) on a machine with Pentium III-500.
Someone with a K2-6 500 Mhz reported this error :

(both systems ran on Windows 98 !)

>BESWEET executed an invalid instruction in
>module BESWEET.EXE at 01cf:0040fbab.
>Registers:
>EAX=00000000 CS=01cf EIP=0040fbab EFLGS=00010246
>EBX=7fffffff SS=01d7 ESP=006bfb54 EBP=006bfb74
>ECX=00007ffe DS=01d7 ESI=0043e4a4 FS=186f
>EDX=00000000 ES=01d7 EDI=00007ffe GS=0000
>Bytes at CS:EIP:
>0f 4f d0 e2 f6 89 15 6c dd 43 00 8b 5d 08 3b 3d
>Stack dump:
>00000ea8 00000001 000001b3 006bfe28 006bfdc4 006bfcf9 00000000
>00007ffe 00000001 00402843 02570dec 00000000 40240000 00000000
>00000000 006bfdcc

Any ideas here ?
DSPGuru ?

EoH

[KpeX]

@ EoH

What I meant (and should have said) is that it couldn't be adapted for Win 9x without a complete rewrite. Not sure why your batch wasn't working for me, probably something I didn't set up right with the 3 directories, but I just added the same reverb settings to my latest edition. Haven't tested enough yet to decide if I like the reverb effects.

@ Kempfand, DC, EoH:

You're right about sox needing two command lines. I'm not totally sure why because I haven't found a really good sox helpfile, but the reverb and the conversion to mono definitely have to be done in seperate steps. However, the -c 1 commands aren't needed, see the streamlined command in my latest edition. Also,

@ Kempfand & EoH:

Had a thought today. What if the batch files you developed focused on using the commercial encoders and batch encoding (which you seem to prefer, correct me if I'm wrong) and I focused on the freeware/BeSweet internal Ac3Enc encoding. Just an idea, let me know your thoughts.

@ all

Here is

Here is EncodeAC3 version 0.40 (http://www.freewebs.com/kpex/EncodeAC3v0.40.zip), changelog:

- Right/left channels now are mapped correctly (thx guys)
- Reverb is an option via commandline

Thanks to EoH and Kempfand for reverb settings. Feel free to modify them or any other settings to your liking. As far as usage, not much has changed, still needs 1 working directory and the locations of BeSweet & sox to be specified. Here's a quote from the readme included:

Usage:

Configure the first three lines of the batch file to reflect the directory where you unzipped the archive (workingdir), your directory that contains sox.exe (soxdir) and the BeSweet directory (bsdir).

1. Use the .bat file from command line like this: Encode.bat "path\infile.wav" "path\outfile.ac3"
If no outfile is specified, the ac3 will be named as 'infile-DD5.1.ac3".

2. To save temporary wav files, add a -debug at the end of the command.

3. To add reverb, add a -reverb at the end of the command.

Examples:

To add reverb and keep temporary files use something like:
Encode.bat "path\infile.wav" "path\outfile.ac3" -debug -reverb
Or modify for whatever you want to do: the only thing that is required is the input file, outfile can be autonamed or specified, use -debug and -reverb in any combination after the filename(s).

hth, thanks to all who test,

KpeX

Edit: changed thread title to reflect recent developments

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by kempfand
@sewerrat: Post your logfiles :D :p ;)

I.e. Add "-logfilea BeSweet.log" to the BeSweet command line. This will create a log-file in your BeSweet directory. Example for the

START /wait besweet.exe -core ( -input %1 -logfilea BeSweet.log -output "fleft.wav" -2ch ) -ssrc ( --normalize -equ "fleft.eq" -q 1)

Andreas

Hi Kempfand,

No further attention needed.... :-)

He gave up....... I think it was a memory problem. Not a fault chip , but more the lack of !! (He had 128 MB...).

BTW I removed the link to the guide on my website, but there's still a link in one of your posts here on the forum. Can you please remove that too.....

The site now has a different name, so people clicking on the link will get a "404"........

People who belong to our "target group", know how and where to find it anyway !! :;)

(I will PM you about the 32 bits routine...... half way now .....)

EoH

[SallyDog]

@EoH

Half Way????

Cool ;)

[knarf829]

I first want to say that this is among the greatest things I've ever found on the internet! Everyone's work on this is to be commended. I'd also like to make clear that I am nowhere near the expert most of you here are - although I'd like to be. Please go easy on me.

First: To those having problems with the batch file (crashing BeSweet) - I did too at first. My problem was in the long file names (like "leftsurround," etc.) used in some places. Also in using long directory names. (Program Files, etc). After changing them down to 8.3 (DOS Style) file names it all worked fine. I'm on XP if that helps anyone.

My interest is in taking CDs and making DTS Surround CDs out of them. For that, this file is great. Personally, I've edited my copy to use 44.1 kHz the whole way, have lessened the reverb in the front 3 channels a bit, and have my copy stop after creating the 6 mono wav files so I can encode them right into a DTS wav. That's been working great for me. I have some questions though.

In SOX, rather than averaging the two channels of the stereo file to make the mono files (100% volume in 1 channel averaged with 0% volume in the other = 50% overall volume in mono) is there a way to combine the two at full volume to increase the overall volume? I've tested it manually in Cool Edit (100% L + 100% R Convert from Stereo to Mono), and it doesn't make the tracks break 0 dB (most stay under -6). I don't know if SOX can do this like CoolEdit can. Obviously, SOX is the right program for this batch so if it can't it's really a minor issue. (SOX is great! I didn't even know it was out there until I saw this).

In the interest of automation...

...is there a command line DOS / XP CD ripper that will do CUE + WAV ripping of a CD (Disc at Once)? It would be great to add that to this if so. I've been using EAC to rip to a file called "audio.wav," and have built that file into the batch so I don't have to type the command line each time. Being able to go right from ripping automatically into this script would be a big plus.

...is there a way to throw my 6 mono wavs right into SurCode via command line (built into the script) and start the encoding?

...along the same lines, is there a command line CD burner that will burn from CUE + WAV?

Ideally, I'd like to put the original CD in drive 1 and a blank CDR in drive 2, start a batch, leave, and have a completed DTS CD in drive 2 when I get back.

Again, apologies if anything I've said above makes me sound stupid or newbie-like. You have no idea how much I dig making DTS CDs this way - they sound great!

[daphy]

My interest is in taking CDs and making DTS Surround CDs out of them. For that, this file is great. Personally, I've edited my copy to use 44.1 kHz the whole way, have lessened the reverb in the front 3 channels a bit, and have my copy stop after creating the 6 mono wav files so I can encode them right into a DTS wav.

what value for reverb effect would you recomend? so I can try this, because the reverb effect sometimes sound like the drummer loses his rhythm :D


...along the same lines, is there a command line CD burner that will burn from CUE + WAV?


yes there is: cdrdao (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2171&release_id=114827) would manage CD burning of CUE files via commandline (a GUI (http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/axatis/XProject/XDuplicator/index.htm) some kind of fix (http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/axatis/XProject/XToker/index.htm) is avaible too):rolleyes:

...is there a command line DOS / XP CD ripper that will do CUE + WAV ripping of a CD (Disc at Once)? It would be great to add that to this if so. I've been using EAC to rip to a file called "audio.wav," and have built that file into the batch so I don't have to type the command line each time. Being able to go right from ripping automatically into this script would be a big plus.

I remember of a little tweak (http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/files/cdfs.zip) which offers (only Win9x) the opportunity to copy directly the WAV (not CDA) from an audioCD -> thought Gabest (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=82303) has witten the same tweak for WinNT-based OS (also see Project: guliverkli: Summary (http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli)).
But then you still have single WAVs (which can be mergered via cmd line using the copy command with further arguments) but no CUE :confused:

First attemp to solve this problem (http://www.audiograbber.com-us.net/boards/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001795.html)
Second attemp ->but obviously problems with Win32 (http://www.windac.de/eng/pro03a.shtml)
...

(any ideas???)

...is there a way to throw my 6 mono wavs right into SurCode via command line (built into the script) and start the encoding?

This issue will surely be solved in next future look here to see the 'status'! (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55590)

CYA Daphy

PS: I did some further testings which more extrem recordings - as mentinoned the sound is REAL COOL, maybe a little fine tuning with the reverb effect is necessary to prefend to much echo effects in some recordings like accapella or where only a few intruments playing in a room with absolutely NO echo intendened

GREAT WORK

[knarf829]

DAPHY:

Thanks so much for your kind reply.

what value for reverb effect would you recomend? so I can try this, because the reverb effect sometimes sound like the drummer loses his rhythm

It's very much a personal taste, but you do need some reverb in there to create differentiation between the front and rear channels. I started with no reverb in the front, but it was too dry. I experimented and took it up to "reverb 1.0 450.0 112.5" in the front 3. It's still not quite right to my tastes, but it's closer. I've been using the drum fill into "Mean Mr. Mustard" on the Beatles Abbey Road as a test. I try to balance between the original intent of the recording versus the best surround effect. I'm still tweaking to my tastes.

Thanks for the links to cdrdao and the "dts encoding via commandline" thread. I'm going to work with these and see what I can get. Sorry - - I really should have found those on my own. In addition to not being a sound-processing expert, I guess I am also not a searching expert! :D

I'm really interested in going straight from CD ---> 6 44.1 kHz Mono Waves ----> 44.1 kHz DTS Wave without encoding to 48 kHz AC3 and then back again. I find that the more you process a sound signal, the more it degrades and the greater risk for corruption of the file. You can see it slightly in the "reverb" pass in SOX and how it changes the file size. I fear that another pass at the files will only harm them.

I can post the text of my modified batch if anyone would find that helpful. Thanks in advance to all for any advice.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by knarf829
DAPHY:

Thanks so much for your kind reply.



It's very much a personal taste, but you do need some reverb in there to create differentiation between the front and rear channels. I started with no reverb in the front, but it was too dry. I experimented and took it up to "reverb 1.0 450.0 112.5" in the front 3. It's still not quite right to my tastes, but it's closer. I've been using the drum fill into "Mean Mr. Mustard" on the Beatles Abbey Road as a test. I try to balance between the original intent of the recording versus the best surround effect. I'm still tweaking to my tastes.

Thanks for the links to cdrdao and the "dts encoding via commandline" thread. I'm going to work with these and see what I can get. Sorry - - I really should have found those on my own. In addition to not being a sound-processing expert, I guess I am also not a searching expert! :D

I'm really interested in going straight from CD ---> 6 44.1 kHz Mono Waves ----> 44.1 kHz DTS Wave without encoding to 48 kHz AC3 and then back again.



Jump in with a small correction : there is no need to encode to AC3 first. There are 2 batches written, one for 44 khz > to DTS and the other for 48 Khz > to AC3

In one of the other threads here on Doom9's forum you can read that the commandline option for making DTS from commandline is near completion.




I find that the more you process a sound signal, the more it degrades and the greater risk for corruption of the file. You can see it slightly in the "reverb" pass in SOX and how it changes the file size. I fear that another pass at the files will only harm them.

I can post the text of my modified batch if anyone would find that helpful. Thanks in advance to all for any advice.


About your reverb experiment.....try adding more walls...... :-)
We know about the corruption and degrading of the material. Main reason is that the process is directly on the 16 bit material.
We're working hard for a better method.... just watch this space.

But if we can keep that as automatic as you wish ????????????

I doubt it :(

EoH

[daphy]

Third attemp... (http://mareo.netfirms.com/) :rolleyes:

CYA Daphy

[bitsnbytes]

Very Kool Kpex, Although I'm Using surcode dvd pro you got my interest! I use you're version 40 with -debug so i take the 6 mono waves and put them in surcode.

I burnt them to dvd and my rotel RDV-1060 DVD Audio player see's .AC3 and .DTS like mp3 and man is there a differance playing straight off disk versus thru spdif.

1. cant get windvd to send straight out spdif.
2. bs player wont play .dts file
3. powerdvd works but seems muffled a bit


I have tried many diff songs most are good
but i tried Boston - Walk On album and seems they use A lot of reverb or something in that album and made it ugly.
Boston third stage album made a Gem!

I tried some golden classics like cat stevens
Walter Egan - Bob Welch - Exile - Blue Oyster Cult Godzilla Heh loved that one.

All n all A pretty sweet tool.
not bad from mp3 to dts either.

possible a batch for mp3 to 6 wav's?

ideas on equ settings I'm not sure wtf im doing in the eq plugin my sub is set to crossover @60hz
should I make an LFE eq adjustment?

Thanks again :-)

[KpeX]

@ bitsnbytes

1. Thanks for the kind words and testing, and welcome to the forum.

2. I would recommend giving Zoom Player or Media Player Classic a try for S/PDIF playback. And also AC3Filter (currently v 0.70 ) of course.

3. Remembering that you will get a higher quality transcode from a .wav source, you can use mp3 input right now. In fact, you can use any input format besweet will accept, which includes mp3, vorbis, wav, LPCM, AVIs or VOBs containing audio, MP2, or even a 2 channel AC3. You shouldn't need to even change your commandline, just make sure to use the right extension. Ain't BeSweet great :d

4. 60Hz seems like a very low crossover setting. That would mean your sub is only covering from whatever low range it can hit up to 60Hz. The commonly accepted low threshold of hearing is 20 Hz. As far as whether you should change the EQ, listen to how the LFE channel sounds, and make that decision yourself.

5. Playing music over S/PDIF in 5.1 was the reason I developed the method, I think this upmix works much better for music than does Pro Logic (at least on my amp). hth,

KpeX


Edit: On second thought, I just tried and got some weird error messages. Whether it was my mistake or not, here is v 0.41 (http://www.freewebs.com/kpex/EncodeAC3v0.41.zip), changes:

- added support for mp3 input using lame to decode. Make sure to specify the location for the lame.exe MP3 encoder/decoder in the first few lines of the batch file. Usage remains the same. You can get lame from the Doom9 download page.

[bitsnbytes]

Yeah I don't remeber the default .dll but on some .mp3's it would end up with different file lengths. Lame seems to cure the glitch ;-)

2 things

1.when I play back right channel seems weaker than left, like bass is not as strong had to play a 2ch audio to make sure my speaker wasnt blown heh.

2. I have a 20 bit cd audio disk, and wondering
what might be done to keep the 20 bit... or will it keep it if i rip it using EAC to .wav
and if EAC keeps it 20 will your batch file keep it.

I guess next will will be doing -es and -ex

thanks
:cool:

[KpeX]

@ bitandbytes

1. I doubt this is related to the batch processing, the right and left channels are processed exactly the same method.

2. Good question. Try it with -debug and find out.

[bitsnbytes]

Upon researching 20 bit audio cd's seems its 20 bit mastering and 16 bit internal.
as when i ripped it to wav they were 16 bit.

I'm befuddled over the left n right again i ripped a track and all the "action" seems to be on the left but i do hear what i dont know what to say other than a "surround effects" channel

i will try just doing left and right front alone
then right only left only

nice thing about the dts encoder u can do that.

thanks for the reply's

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by SallyDog
@EoH

Half Way????

Cool ;)

Forget about it !
We're almost done with our new Ambisonics method that beats the hell out of this one !

No offense intended, but as long as it can only be done in 16 bits, the endresults are dull compared to routines in 32 bit.

This weekend a complete new method is developed without any of the KpeX or related SAD5.1 methods. It is Ambisonic related and gives a sound.... boy oh boy.... :-)

I did several tests and compared every file : This method is good, but the lack of 32 bits coding is too bad for the endresult.

The original Ambi method is more than a year old, so it was time to develop something with the latest tools....
And compared to my original method this one is fast and easy !

There also a surprise involved...... !!

I keep you in suspense until the guide is complete and completely fool-proof....

hehehe :-)


EoH

[KpeX]

@bitsandbytes
Don't forget to try encoding with -debug and see if your left and right .wav files differ. Then you can determine whether the problem is coming in the AC3/DTS encoding process or before.


@EoH
We're almost done with our new Ambisonics method that beats the hell out of this one !
Doubt it. How about instead of random claims and facts, you give some real audio/technical reasons why this will be so much better.
<sarcasm>
If the payoff to the suspense of this release is anywhere near as good as your last one, I may need to purchase some adult diapers for the next week or so ;)
</sarcasm>
No harm intended, good luck, waiting to see your new method.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
@bitsandbytes
Don't forget to try encoding with -debug and see if your left and right .wav files differ. Then you can determine whether the problem is coming in the AC3/DTS encoding process or before.


@EoH

Doubt it. How about instead of random claims and facts, you give some real audio/technical reasons why this will be so much better.
<sarcasm>
If the payoff to the suspense of this release is anywhere near as good as your last one, I may need to purchase some adult diapers for the next week or so ;)
</sarcasm>
No harm intended, good luck, waiting to see your new method.

Hey , How many times do we need to repeat to you about 32 bits instead of 16 ? Obviously you're a slow learner.
Your method is not capable of doing things in 32 bits.
Take a look at this thread and follow the suggestion I added at the end, then compare the results with your method.....
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59949

FYI I did ! But because you don't believe me when I say so : try it. Listen to the endresult and then....... Let's see if you're still that self conceited !


BTW....indeed, your sarcasm is not appreciated. It's so easy to say the most ugly and nasty things about people and then say : no harm intended.
It's IMHO just cheap !

EoH

[echooff]

EoH
When do you think we might see your new method? The more the merrier, especially if it is better.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by echooff
EoH
When do you think we might see your new method? The more the merrier, especially if it is better.

I hope within a week. The method is ready, what lacks is a fool proof guide and a batchroutine. We're working on both.

You can download 4 tracks done with different methods . They were posted this weekend in alt.binaries.sounds .
The title of the post :
ATTN Kempfand : 4 tracks to test... email your preference.

Download, unrar, burn as audio to a cd and listen and compare.

Let us all know the order of your preference.

kind regards,

EoH

[KpeX]

EoH, you claim your method will "beat the hell" out of mine, and then you think I have a problem with saying unkind things? As far as 32 vs. 16 bits, I've read everything you said about it, how about something more than talk? post two identical samples encoded to AC3, I highly doubt you could ABX them. Self conceited? excuse me? (side note: don't think you can be conceited for anyone else ;)) To me, conceited is continually spamming your own method that doesn't exist yet in a non related thread.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
EoH, you claim your method will "beat the hell" out of mine, and then you think I have a problem with saying unkind things?

I believe in a former post you were already pointed at your intolerance for people whose native language is not English and now you do it again. The results of our new method sound like a canon compared to the pistol of yours. Better ? Gee.... talking about long toes.....
In one of your posts, or on your website, you said something like "everyone is welcome to improve or add to my method". Well, you sure show how welcome we are !


As far as 32 vs. 16 bits, I've read everything you said about it, how about something more than talk? post two identical samples encoded to AC3, I highly doubt you could ABX them.


Make them yourself ! I'm not here to convince you ! And I don't know what ABX means ! Again neglecting the fact that this is an international forum and that there are people from non English speaking countries.


Self conceited? excuse me? (side note: don't think you can be conceited for anyone else ;))

Again you're making jokes at the expense of someone's language.
I really advice you to stop this, as it's very immature. It's the thing certain people start doing, when they are out of arguments.

But..... to clear it up : this came from my Dutch-English dictionary. Indeed.... not a Dutch-American one !

But thanks for another cheap shot !!!


To me, conceited is continually spamming your own method that doesn't exist yet in a non related thread.

My method doesn't exsist ?????
Read my previous message. Even you can download an example. (That is : if you know how to download from newsgroups.)

Continually spamming your own method ??
Well, indeed every second message is one from me about my excellent new but not exsisting method that outperforms every other method on the market !!! (Ooooohhhh....., EoH ! Now you must say : this was sarcasm, before he feels his long toes again. This was sarcasm !)


Non related ???????

Well .... I agree.... when you change headers of the subject, there will always be mails non related !!
But OK, it's no more completely on topic, but that's also because of your selective quoting. I posted a link to another thread in the same post. Another method that almost equals yours. But that gives far better results because of the possibility to use 32 bits.
Of course you didn't say anything about that, huh ?

Now the last big question is : who was first ! You or the other guy ?Ooopsss... off topic :-)

EoH

[KpeX]

I believe in a former post you were already pointed at your intolerance for people whose native language is not English and now you do it again.
I'd like to see a link to that post. I've never had that attitude. Some of the most eloquent members on this board are non-native english speakers. Ever hear of having a little fun?

2. ABX is a blind comparison method for audio. There's software available to facilitate the method. If you're interested do a search on www.hydrogenaudio.org

3. I really want to end this flaming. You're more than welcome to improve on our stereo > surround efforts, what I don't appreciate is brash statements that aren't backed up by facts and are merely putting down one technique for another one.

Continually spamming your own method ??
Well, indeed every second message is one from me about my excellent new but not exsisting method that outperforms every other method on the market !!! (Ooooohhhh....., EoH ! Now you must say : this was sarcasm, before he feels his long toes again. This was sarcasm !)
I'm rather confused as to what you were trying to say here, but I'd rather stop this here. Try not to take everything I say as an insult, I try to have a little fun and keep things lighthearted. Unfortunately mood is not as easily demonstrated in text as it is in oral communication.

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by KpeX
I'd like to see a link to that post. I've never had that attitude. Some of the most eloquent members on this board are non-native english speakers. Ever hear of having a little fun?

4th page 4th message of .....THIS thread !
I like fun..... but not at the expense of someone else or because of someone language. I also don't like jokes about racism, disabled people etc.

2. ABX is a blind comparison method for audio. There's software available to facilitate the method. If you're interested do a search on www.hydrogenaudio.org


Software to hear the difference between two equal songs, but encoded in different ways ? Well, I will have a look...... And I dare you to download the 4 testsongs from the newsgroup and do the same comparison !

3. I really want to end this flaming. You're more than welcome to improve on our stereo > surround efforts, what I don't appreciate is brash statements that aren't backed up by facts and are merely putting down one technique for another one.

I like to stop too, but...... you're the one that interpretes my message as brash statements. And not backed up by facts is again not true. There are testfiles on a newsgroup that you can download. You just tell us all which of the 4 sounds the best. Then I will tell you how we created the four and which method we used!
Beside that....... if you don't appreciate it, you start flaming ?
You could have asked for more explanation !
You could have asked about the "beats the hell" statement, instead of the immediate assumption it was insulting.

That's what we call communication !



I'm rather confused as to what you were trying to say here, but I'd rather stop this here. Try not to take everything I say as an insult, I try to have a little fun and keep things lighthearted. Unfortunately mood is not as easily demonstrated in text as it is in oral communication.

Indeed.... and that's why we have to be more careful with what we say and how we say it. You ... and... me too !
Count to ten before reacting.... it helps !!

EoH

[bitsnbytes]

Hello Kpex again thanks for the reply.

I encoded left n right only then right only.
Right alone rendered crap so i put a dvd in the standalone and played godzilla I had made and right channel was perfect. I can only deduct that its power dvd POS that is not sending the signal un adulterated. I am preparing to burn this troublesome version to dvd for a test... if this is not right i may have channels mixed up.
I have channel1 = fr left channel2 = fr right
channel3 = center channel 4 = left surround channel5 = right surround and channel6 = LFE

My thoughts on surround A touch for music is kool A lot would only be usefull in movie soundtracks. As some heavy rock jams I do not enjoy the surround. Reverb is totally outta the "musical" equasion, good for football broadcast and movie I imagine.

I will be taking my DTS dvd to my local audio nuts shop for a Highend equipment test... heh who am I foolin I just wanna show ma wares off ;-)

I look forward to hearing the ambisonic thing but I have to say that anything that didnt take off commercially I have doubts in... I mean hell even dbx went commercial... And there are alot of audiophiles to push a "superior" product.

As for this method I believe it renders A enjoyable result.

[KpeX]

Aha...perhaps here is the problem....actual channel mapping is intended to mirror the BeSweet mux file alphabetically...i.e.:

channel 1 = front left
channel 3 = front right
channel 2 = center channel
channel 4 = Surround left
channel 5 = surround right
channel 6 = lfe

I will soon update the batch so that this is more clear for those that feed the waves to a commercial encoder.

Edit:

corrected, I typed too fast ;)

[Eye of Horus]

I look forward to hearing the ambisonic thing but I have to say that anything that didnt take off commercially I have doubts in... I mean hell even dbx went commercial... And there are alot of audiophiles to push a "superior" product.

As for this method I believe it renders A enjoyable result. [/B]

Yep, after I read all those websites, a year ago, I had some doubts too. But they supply on one of the sites a very viable explanation why it didn't become a commercial success.
But I can only advice you what i say all the time... 2 things....
a. let your own ears decide !
b. change your assumption of surround.
With this I mean : surround for me means surrounded by sound. Separation and discrete channels are not surround ! That's what a commercial firm made from it !! Don't be a blind DTS or DD follower, because they say their method is surround !
I always give the old Quad as an example : a singer from the frontleft, a guitar from the frontright, drums from the rearleft and a bass and second guitar from the rearright, but........ where the heck is the band ??????
Yep , when you sit in the sweet spot, you get a good result, but when you move 4 feet to the left..... away is the surround feeling.
This doesn't happen with Ambisonics !
That's why I advice people not to compare it with Dolby or DTS, but try to listen to it without prejudice. Listen to it as a completely different and new method. Different it is ! And new...well, in some way yes, new too !
BTW did you already try it once ??? There is a guide here and you can try it there. The method we're working on now is less improvement on the soundquality than on the userfriendliness !

Also : you can download from the newsgroup the 4 songs. Listen to them and decide for yourself which you prefer !

In my case for this song, I liked one method clearly above the others :-) But.......... on other songs it can be completely different. It's not only the method , it's also the source material !

You already said it in your message !

And another BTW : read a review of Stereotomy from the Alan Parsons Project. A vinyl from 1985 which got excellent , even outstanding reviews for the soundquality ! Not talking about the content, but about the quality of the sound. It was recorded in..... Ambisonics !


kind regards,

EoH

[bitsnbytes]

Ok Kpex its not the player its channel2.wav


which from what i can see should be right front.

but when i play it back in winamp its got no balls.


maybe something mixed up or did i goof something?



AH HA!


START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\frontleft.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel1.wav"
START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\frontright.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel3.wav"
START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\centerchannel.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel2.wav"
START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\surroundleft.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel4.wav"
START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\surroundright.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel5.wav"
START /wait %soxdir%\sox.exe -V -c 2 "%workingdir%\lfe.wav" -c 1 "%workingdir%\channel6.wav"
GOTO ac3sec

Looks like 3 is right front and 2 is center


u see anything else?

[KpeX]

Channel 2 is the center channel, Channel 3 is the right front channel, going by the naming system in the batch file I uploaded. To remove any confusion (hopefully) here is version 0.42 (http://www.freewebs.com/kpex/EncodeAC3v0.42.zip), wave files are now named with the channel included, i.e. fl=frontleft, cc=center channel, sr=surround right, ect. hth,

KpeX

[kempfand]

# KpeX: A few remarks on the previous discussion with EoH:

1) 32 bit really seems the way to go. Arguments from my point of view:
- Most prefessional tools (Steinberg for example) recommend 32 (or even 64 bit) for the intermediate steps
- Audio professionals in other forums recommend the same
- Most important (for me): Doing a 'listening' comparison shows an audible difference. I.e. the quality of using 32-bit is very audible (not just 80/20 rule) vs. 'just' doing the intermediate steps at 16 bits.

2) The 'new' method annonced by EoH indded gives superrior results for many music pieces. I state this as I am involved in the development and testing of it (realising that I might be biased). It is very true that it is just a question of putting together a 'workable' guide which is managable by most readers

3) For me, the ultimate goeal is to produce by SW what is referred to as 'HW-repurposing'. I.e. I firmly belive that in 3-5 years from now, we can do with (mostly Sharreware) what the HW-wizzards achive on Stereo.

In summary, let's keep things constructive.

^Best regards,

Andreas

[KpeX]

@ Kempfand

1. Well said.

2. I'm open to the possibilities of 32-bit editing, I just haven't put much time into attempting it because:
a. I have much less free time this part of the year, and
b. I don't upmix for archival purposes, really only for temporary listening purposes. I archive music with .mp3 using lame's alt standard or alt extreme preset, and for temporary listening purposes using all channels, I think the method is quite sufficient.

3. I look forward to trying new methods and developments.

[daphy]

@ Eye of Horus

Is the news version of the ambisonic 'thing' a 4.0 or 4.1 solution?

I got some trouble with my surroundamp (Yamaha A2 + Teufel M200/M6000): every time I use only the subwoofer for the bass it sound perfect (presupposed there was a LFE channel) if I chose both, subwoofer + main speaker I got no bass from the sub and because of this nearly no bass. (BTW. two friends of mine had the same trouble on diffrent equipment!)
-> is it possible (if necessary :rolleyes: ) to combine the ambisonic methode with the SAD5.1/KPEX - Method to get a lfe channel?
One can mix this channel afterwards to the DTS/AC3 file but this might lead to scatching sound because of to much level :(


CYA Daphy - I´m looking forward to another methode :D

PS:
@ KpeX
@ Eye of Horus

flaming leads to nothing :devil:
preserve your nerves :sly:

[SallyDog]

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Also : you can download from the newsgroup the 4 songs. Listen to them and decide for yourself which you prefer !

In my case for this song, I liked one method clearly above the others :-) But.......... on other songs it can be completely different. It's not only the method , it's also the source material !

EoH

@EoH

I listened to each track and must say they pretty much sounded the same to me. I preferred #2, but maybe that was because it was louder. It also seemed to have more action coming from the center speaker. I couldn't tell any difference between #3 and #4.

Part of this is probably because my hearing is not what it used to be (too many rock concerts in the early 70's).

Anyway, are you going to give a hint of the different methods you used for each recording??

Regards,

SallyDog

[Eye of Horus]

@Sallydog....

Please use the song names. As we don't know how they decompressed in your special situation. Your track one could be mine track2 or 4, depending on the way of sorting :-)

EoH

[SallyDog]

Duh.

1. 0332ase.wav
2. 0332aseq.wav
3. 0332m2f.wav
4. 03alt.wav

Regards,

SallyDog

[Eye of Horus]

Originally posted by SallyDog
Duh.

1. 0332ase.wav
2. 0332aseq.wav
3. 0332m2f.wav
4. 03alt.wav

Regards,

SallyDog

I'll leave the comments to Kempfand :-) LOL !!

I don't know yet if any other dare to test it....
Didn't hear KpeX and Daphy yet.... so I will send the used encoding methods by PM....

regards,

EoH