converting ac3 5.1 to dts?

[eddieprince]

Is there a way to convert ac3 5.1 (moviesound track) to dts?

[unkown]

Of course! use BeSweet to obtain separate wav files and then encode using Surcode DTS encoder.

Just wait a minute: as ac3 files have a worst compression (lower bitrate) than DTS files, so you won't get an improvement of quality but a bigger file size.

[P0l1m0rph1c]

Originally posted by unkown
Of course! use BeSweet to obtain separate wav files and then encode using aziDTS or Surcode DTS encoder.

aziDTS is just a wrapper for WinDVD filters, so, it just decodes DTS, not encode.



Just wait a minute: as ac3 files have a worst compression (lower bitrate) than DTS files, so you won't get an improvement of quality but a bigger file size.

True, true...

[Sycho]

Originally posted by unkown
Of course! use BeSweet to obtain separate wav files and then encode using Surcode DTS encoder.

Just wait a minute: as ac3 files have a worst compression (lower bitrate) than DTS files, so you won't get an improvement of quality but a bigger file size.
Umm... AC3 uses a better compression than dts, think MPEG2 vs MPEG4, WMV9, Divx ect

[DIggedy]

What Unkown was trying to say is that ac3 uses heavier compression than dts, so reencoding to dts would be pointless. Furthermore reencoding to a higher bitrate would introduce artifacts.

[eddieprince]

So if I understand correctly. It is no use or recommendable to encode ac3 to dts. There is no sound improvement when converting ac3 to dts?

[bond]

Originally posted by eddieprince
There is no sound improvement when converting ac3 to dts?exactly and this is pretty logic when thinking about that
you can never get better quality than the quality the source itself has

[eddieprince]

So why is there a dts encoder. The source is never better than dts. Or am I missing something?

[Sunhillow]

Originally posted by eddieprince
So why is there a dts encoder. The source is never better than dts. Or am I missing something?

The source is uncompressed linear PCM. DTS is very high quality lossy compression.

[Sycho]

Originally posted by DIggedy
What Unkown was trying to say is that ac3 uses heavier compression than dts
again MPEG1 vs. MPEG2 vs MPEG4
AC3 uses a BETTER compression than dts.

[Sunhillow]

the compression of AC3 is higher than that of DTS

better would mean it sounds better at the same bitrate, but we cannot compare AC3 and DTS at a given bitrate

[Sycho]

Originally posted by Sunhillow
the compression of AC3 is higher than that of DTS
I going to try this again, the codec that Dolby uses is more efficient, example it utilizes better compression techniques to achieve the same audio output

[DIggedy]

That is objective, and is why people argue the merits of DD vs. DTS until they're blue in the face. That is another thread, and is not particularly relevant here.

[Sycho]

Originally posted by DIggedy
That is objective, and is why people argue the merits of DD vs. DTS until they're blue in the face. That is another thread, and is not particularly relevant here.
if you rip movies which one would you use to commpress?
mpeg2 or mpeg4
"well mpeg2 will have a higher bitrate to produce the same image so it must be better..." sure

[DIggedy]

You're not getting my point. I realise DD is a more efficient codec, but not everyone agrees that the bitrate of DD is enough to achieve
the same audio output
That is why I say it's objective.
Furthermore DTS doesn't use dialnorm and Dynamic Range Compression which can affect sound quality.
The whole point of this thread was to point out that feeding a DD track into a DTS encoder wouldn't magically improve the sound quality, whereas some may agree that when a studio feeds an uncompressed master to DTS and DD encoders that the DTS will sound better, just as some may agree that the DD & DTS tracks sound identical, again this is objective. :sly:

[Sycho]

do we agree to disagree?