DTS to HE-AAC 5.1 and AC-3 to HE-AAC 5.1

[guada]

Hello everyone,

I never made the comparison but, I think that a difference exists between this two conversions audios. Because the DTS is superior to AC-3.
My question: Does exist today a software permitting to convert the DTS ( 6.1ES) to HE-AAC 5.1 ?

Sorry for my english.

[Kurtnoise]

OMG, guada is not dead...:D

Does exist today a software permitting to convert the DTS ( 6.1ES) to HE-AAC 5.1 ?
Yes, Azidts + Nero dll...And, check this post (http://atlas2.tgv.net/~media-video/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=5148) ;)

[KpeX]

Originally posted by guada
Hello everyone,

I never made the comparison but, I think that a difference exists between this two conversions audios. Because the DTS is superior to AC-3.
My question: Does exist today a software permitting to convert the DTS ( 6.1ES) to HE-AAC 5.1 ?

Sorry for my english. Kurtnoise has got you pointed in the right direction. However keep in mind that there's no scientific proof that transcoding dts provides better quality than transcoding AC3. Only that it's harder, and has a larger source file ;)

[Sycho]

Originally posted by guada
Because the DTS is superior to AC-3.
have any proof to back that up?

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Sycho

have any proof to back that up?

Common, guess guada has simply forgotten to add a "imo" after the "is"... ;)


Bye

[guada]

Thank you kurt for these information. ;)
My respects to all.

But a question challenges me. since that no scientific proof only proved the transcoding of the DTS is not superior to AC-3 ( KpeX). How to explain that the DTS transcoding WAV to is better quality than AC3 to WAV ?

Can one think that the rule 5.1 and 2.O either so different concerning transcoding?

[Kurtnoise]

Originally posted by guada
How to explain that the DTS transcoding WAV to is better quality than AC3 to WAV ?
Why did you say that ??

DTS has a higher bitrate range than AC3. That's all. You can't say that the transcoding process is better for DTS. These formats are completely different in algorithm structure : one is based on sub-band coding (DTS) and the other on transform based coding (AC3). But I don't think you could distinguish or hear differences between both codecs.


Originally posted by guada
Can one think that the rule 5.1 and 2.O either so different concerning transcoding?
Well...it depends of number channels output I guess...

[KpeX]

My point was that there have been no formal public listening tests that I know of that prove that DTS is better than AC3, and the differences are even smaller when you transcode to a highly compressed format like HE-AAC.

[Sycho]

if anything is better it would be AC3, because is more reliably, ie does not change to audio input

i have to find some lost links but i will post them

[guada]

Hello kurt,

I don't question your expertises audios. Nevertheless have you tried to make a test to prove your statements.
What I can tell you, there is more depth, of spatial definition and a dynamics with the DTS transcoding to WAV that AC3 to WAV .
Therefore why not for the HE-AAC 5.1? it is only my point of view.

One can think that a format 6.1 even to elevated bitrate is less respectful of the transcodage 5.1 to 5.1
It would be well that you make a test, if you want it and if you have a moment, it will cool me the thought.

[KpeX]

;) Actually it works the other way around....we don't have to prove you can't hear the difference, you have to prove you can hear the difference....I would be interested in such a test, but I can't afford software to encode DTS or quality AC3.

HE-AAC is a highly compressed format, half the dynamic range isn't even there, and the loss introduced by compression when encoding to HE-AAC is much higher than the loss from the original DTS or AC3.

[Sycho]

this is my opinion which I think is the most correct and logical

typically the mix use for the Dolby Digital track will be the theatrical mix, meant for several speakers placed around the auditorium working together to recreate the spacious ness of the tracks

while using the theatrical track sounds fine and recreates the theatrical experience, dts tracks are usually remixed for home theater use, which means louder surrounds higher frequencies and deeper bass. But, dts encoders have been known, in the pass, to modify the audio input, examples are add info the the LFE boosting the surrounds ext.

[yidaki]

Originally posted by KpeX
;) Actually it works the other way around....we don't have to prove you can't hear the difference, you have to prove you can hear the difference....I would be interested in such a test, but I can't afford software to encode DTS or quality AC3. How do you display a sense of perception?
That's like not believing what comes out of the mouth but wants to see what's in the head, noone can do that.
I'm not sure you would like that either, sounds like some dangerous wiring ;)

[KpeX]

Originally posted by yidaki
How do you display a sense of perception?
That's like not believing what comes out of the mouth but wants to see what's in the head, noone can do that.
I'm not sure you would like that either, sounds like some dangerous wiring ;) I don't fully understand your post....but what I was talking about was an ABX-style test, which is a scientific way of proving that you can hear the difference between two samples of sound. There are several programs available for doing this, check out www.hydrogenaudio.org

[JnZ]

Originally posted by KpeX
I was talking about was an ABX-style test, which is a scientific way of proving that you can hear the difference between two samples of sound.

Yes, KpeX was right. Everybody tells, that hear diferences, but nobody do tests like ABX to prove their arguments....