Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > General > Audio encoding

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th June 2004, 21:50   #521  |  Link
kempfand
Registered User
 
kempfand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
The 3 new bidules make usage of Gerzon technology (Gerzon 1997 Groups & Bidules ), but are much more elaborated than the basic groups.

We are actually keen on your feedback & opinion as to how they do, but I wouldn't see them as or call them "competing" to Ambisonics, as they try to achieve a different result.

Cheers,
Andreas
kempfand is offline  
Old 9th June 2004, 21:59   #522  |  Link
kempfand
Registered User
 
kempfand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...028#post499028

Course assuming you are using adjusted paths to the 01.wav too (f:\)
kempfand is offline  
Old 9th June 2004, 22:18   #523  |  Link
AllTimeSToneD
HDTV Nerd
 
AllTimeSToneD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beerland
Posts: 63
Hehe its weird but yes i use "f:\" for all my wave processings too
Thanks for the link! Haven't seen that option at all

Last edited by AllTimeSToneD; 9th June 2004 at 22:21.
AllTimeSToneD is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 03:17   #524  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
EoH & kempfand,

Just some initial comments since I don't have time tonight to do more thorough testing.

It's obvious you put some thought and experimentation into your new bidules and I congratulate you for this. My initial impression is that the Voice-Non Center or instrumental bidule has quite a bit of potential. This first version produces a nice large soundfield, but it's a bit too "reverby" for my taste. What I mean by this is that it seems to "color" the sound as if it were running through a multichannel reverb unit with the wet level a bit too high. Perhaps it's because of the delays in Stereo Touch. For example, I just took the song "Avalon" by Roxy Music and ran it through the bidule and then did a DTS CD. The percussion in this song really seemed doubled, at points where the highs were flammed by the doubling and the bass suffered from lack of focus. For comparison, I ran the same song through the UpMix Studio bidule with the wdith control on full and put it as the second track on the DTS CD. I still got the big soundfield, but without the doubling on the percussion.

For another test, I took Pink Floyd's High Hopes. Processed through the Voice-Non Center or instrumental bidule, the bells at the beginning sounded like they were in an enclosed space, say a huge arena. The birds chirping and the fly buzzing through seemed overly loud and reverberated. The UpMix Studio bidule version sounded as if the bells were outside and the fly and birds sounded as if they they were right there.

Then I tried some classical guitar music, and I found that the delay and reverb seemed to overwhelm the details in the guitar sound.

Having said all that, I think with some adjustment, this bidule has some potential. As for the other two, I didn't test them very much because after listening to them, I found that their sound is basically not much different from a good, old-fashioned stereo difference signal (L-R) with a bit of bass thrown in, plus a single mono center on the voice-center. I've been playing around with difference signals since the mid-70s when I found a circuit in an electronics magazine for hooking a speaker up across the two positive terminals of an amp. This can produce a very ambient sound from properly recorded stereo material, but it can also sound really weird if instruments are hard panned. An out of phase version is basically the surround channel in Dolby Surround encoding.

Anyway, I'm sorry if this sounds overly negative, but to my ears, the Voice-Non Center or instrumental bidule is the only one with potential. The other two actually sound far worse than my first MatrixMixerEmulator bidule. Could it be that some connections are missing from the two that sound like just a difference channel?

Please don't take this the wrong way. I appreciate that you both put a lot of effort into this, but you did ask for feedback. Perhaps you could explain some of the inner design of the bidule and we can all work together to improve them to the point where they meet our needs better.

Regards,
Ursa.

Last edited by ursamtl; 10th June 2004 at 03:50.
ursamtl is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 03:49   #525  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Re: LFE & speaker placement

Quote:
Originally posted by Tantulus
Now to Ursmtl:

I noticed in your diagramns that you have the listener placed in a central location relative to the speakers. However the manuals suggest that the surround speakers should be placed in line with the listener about 3 feet above the ears. Are you implying there is a sweet spot for ambisonic 5.1? Also, I recently purchased surround speakers that can switch from dipole to monople to bipole. Would any of these settings be better for the surround effect or do I need back surround speakers?

Thanks everyone for your assistance!

Scott
Hi Scott,

Actually, if you do a search around the net for "ITU-5.1", you'll find some diagrams showing the surround speakers at rear angles of about 45 from the center with the fronts at about 30 from center. I've seen some manuals suggest putting the surround speakers point towards each other, others suggesting pointing them towards the listener, and still others suggesting that one point them directly towards the front. The problem with some of this is that it comes from the days of the original Dolby Surround, when both surround speakers were fed with the same signal, an out-of-phase difference signal (front L-front R) with the highs rolled off at 7kHz. The intention was not to create any accurate directionality in the rears, but simply to give the impression of being surrounded by ambience. By shifting the signal out of phase, the ambience is not really directional. The actual ITU-5.1 diagrams I've seen point the speakers towards the listener. As for the fronts, the ideal listening spot is an equilateral triangle with the listener at one point and the L and R at the other points. Of course the center is right in the middle.

As for there being an Ambisonic 5.1 sweet spot, well, yes by definition, the listening point is in the center. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that what we're doing is not "real" ambisonics. If you check Angelo Farina's web site, where I got the formulas for converting stereo to B-format, he states that they are for converting "UHJ" to WXYZ. He states that "UHJ is a 'standard' stereo waveform, which includes information capable of driving a complete horizontal surround system (for example, equipped with 5, 6 or even 8 loudspeakers)." I've written him for confirmation on this, but what he's basically saying is that UHJ is a "stereo" waveform in that it is two channels, but it is unlike regular stereo waveforms in that it also contains encoded extra surround information that, when decoded, allows one to recontruct a complete horizontal surround soundfield. I did some more searching around the net for UHJ info, and the info I found seems to confirm this.

Therefore, taking a regular commercial stereo recording and running it through any of the Ambisonic bidules and/or VSTs we've been discussing is not going to produce true ambisonics. Obviously it does do something. The observation I made last weekend that increasing the Y channel with respect to the W and X increases the perceived width of the soundfield, seems to confirm that the encoding formulas create combinations of sum and difference signals plus phase information in each signal. If one listens to the Y channel isolated from the others, it sounds a lot like a standard difference signal (L-R) but with better frequency response. This was confirmed in the UpMix Studio bidule when I increased the width, the bass remained strong and focused. Doing that with a normal stereo wide effect reduces bass response dramatically. Therefore, encoding a regular stereo signal and processing it as real Ambisonic material certainly seems to have a lot of potential. Of course if part or all of the mix is recorded properly, it [i]is[/] really Ambisonic, but most off-the shelf recordings nowadays feature a whole hodge-podge of recording techniques.

Anyway, I have to get some sleep. I didn't get a chance yet to address the whole issue of LFE use and Kevin Shirley's (mixed the Led Zeppelin DVD) response to my email concerning LFE use. Briefly, he does use it, but makes sure the bass on a system without LFE sounds good and strong enough for those who do not have subwoofers. One thing I found interesting in his response and also in his musings as revealed in the diary on his web site (http://www.cavemanproductions.com) is that he does completely separate mixes for stereo and 5.1 on a DVD. Some engineers would probably just do the stereo and then recycle it as the fronts for a 5.1 mix, but Kevin approaches the two formats as separate entities and mixes them as such.

My feeling as well is that a properly adjusted system with a bass management system renders the whole point moot. When I first set up my system, I had to tweak the sub settings and phase switching to get the sound right, but once I did, the system sounds great. I recommend a test DVD or one of those THX test tracks that are found on some commercial DVDs one rents. The whole notion of avoiding the LFE channel seems ridiculous and a waste of a potential resource.

Ok, the last of a huge multipart download is complete and my better half is going to leave me if I don't come to bed, so goodnight!

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask!

Regards,
Ursa

Last edited by ursamtl; 10th June 2004 at 13:01.
ursamtl is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 16:44   #526  |  Link
kempfand
Registered User
 
kempfand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
ursamtl/Ursa,

Speaking for myself, I do not take your comments as overly negative, and I value the initial feedback which we were looking for. I and a few others like the 3 new bidules very much, and I think they beat the existing bidule methods, but they still can be improved (hopefully), and yes, you are right: maybe a joint effort gets us there. Maybe the bidules do not beat the outcome of a professional audio engineer who sits for 2 weeks to do an upmix, but this wouldn't be a fair comparison, as the bidules do a number of CD's in just an hour.

I would suggest (to all readers also) that you try the new bidules on a large number of various pieces of music. You might be disappointed if you just shoot for the most difficult pieces of music (did that myself in the first place). You might also be disappointed if you shoot for music you know well & love very much, as you might have too harse expectations to the outcome. You might be very happy if you compare what they do to standard DPL2 upmixes.

The overall idea of the new bidules ("inner design" as you say) is simply as follows: Reproduce using Software (SW) what some of the Hardware (HW) Repurposing wizzards did & do.
As crazy as this might sound, I believe that SW Repurposing these days can do it, maybe even better. The same applies for Ambisonics, where the increased precision of internal processing of the SW tools just beats the established old HW units.

The idea of HW repurposing "per se" is IMHO not really a huge secret: "All" it does (i.e. what the HW people do) is to to apply (as an example) a little bit of SRS II and use that for the C, apply DPL 2 and use it for L & R, and finally apply a Sansui decode for the Surrounds. Some of the best HW Repurpose works I know of are done that way or similar (maybe even applying small variations to different parts of the album, or even to different parts within the same track).

As far as I can see, the real difficulty for Repurposing is to select the 'right' music, and often the right mix of the same album. As mentioned earlier, some even take "old" LP's, just because they contain the right mix. After all, isn't it surprising that there are not too many works around which were HW repurposed ? I think it is because of the reasons I outlined (not all music suitable; often various mixes around, some working well, some not).

"Reverby" thing: This is something I noted too. I peronally like it, but you can play with the settings of Voxengo's Stereo VST to change this. Plus there is quite a number of other mono_2_stereo schemes or VST's (i.e. using a simple 'pseudo stereo' scheme: S->L', S->Inverse->R', or specise_8472's more elaborated mono_to_stereo groups mentioned and published earlier in this threat)

"Color": Again try changing the settings of Voxengo's Stereo VST to suit your taste. Speaking about "coloration" (not sure if you mean that one), this also can happen with Ambisonic decodes (esp. on the ITU-5.1).

Finally, a brief comment to your reply to Tantulus/Steve: The methods described here do proper Ambisonics, but the feeding material is not true UHJ. Most importantly, it lacks the 3D information (Z-axis), but who cares, as most of us don't have a 3D speaker setup.

The key thing is that feeding Stereo through an Ambisonics upmix still can produce surprisingly results on "Stereo". In fact, it often does ! For very dry recordings, Ambiophonics is probably a better way to do things (i.e. a Stereo Dipole plus Ambisonics as 'supportive' means 'only'). See also: Farina's comments regarding the concern about the usage of UHJ-to-Surround conversion for not-UHJ stereo recordings

Regards,

Andreas
kempfand is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 22:42   #527  |  Link
brock101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1
Please Help

Hi EOH And kempfand

I have been following your Adventures with regards to stereo manipulation
Sadly every guide which i have tried, i have had the same problem occur many many times, when importing the mono wav files into surcode, some wavs cause surcode to warn me that the wavs are shorter than the others

Has anyone else had the same problems
as i have seen no one else mention this problem

I had given up on converting some of my cd collection into dts... due to the frustration caused... but i decided to give it one last shot due to the new way ... sadly no luck

may i add out of the 20+ attempts i had 1 success
i did war of the worlds sadly disk 1 worked but not disk 2 -_-

Regards
Brock101
brock101 is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 23:14   #528  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Re: Please Help

Quote:
Originally posted by brock101
Sadly every guide which i have tried, i have had the same problem occur many many times, when importing the mono wav files into surcode, some wavs cause surcode to warn me that the wavs are shorter than the others

Has anyone else had the same problems
as i have seen no one else mention this problem
[/B]
Hi Brock,

I haven't had this problem per se, but I have noticed that you have to clear Surcode from the first set of files you were working with before starting a new project. It retains the files loaded into the previous session when you first open it. If you then try to load individual files without first starting a new project (Ctrl+N) or clicking the C beside the channels you want to empty, you'll run into problems. Also, are you following the advice from the original guide and exporting to one 6-channel wave file? I recall reading some talk of just connecting six individual 1-channel file recorders in a bidule as a way of skipping the splitting with Besweet step. I haven't tried this but if I remember correctly, it causes problems as well.

Don't give up! all this experimentation can be fun.

Regards,
Steve.
ursamtl is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 23:15   #529  |  Link
kempfand
Registered User
 
kempfand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
Hi brock101,

Welcome to the forum !

I am having this "error" from time to time as well, and so do others I am aware of. I am also assuming you use the 6-channel Audio File Recorder (i.e. not 3 x 2-channel recorders).

As we found out, this "error" (i.e. warning upon import into SurCode about the mono-wav's having different lengths) does not matter, i.e. has no negative impact on the DTS-packaging. I have tested this on a very long file (nearly one hour), and didn't hear anything out of sync even near the end of the playing time.

It is really difficult to say where this happens^. Could be with Bidule (which I doubt, because Plogue looked into this I think), could be BeSweet, could even be SurCode, could be slow drives or too many other processes running during the demux.

In any case, I would encourage you to try some and see if you really hear something 'out of sync' at the very end.

Good luck,

Andreas
kempfand is offline  
Old 10th June 2004, 23:56   #530  |  Link
Eye of Horus
Banned
 
Eye of Horus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 326
Re: Please Help

Quote:
Originally posted by brock101
Hi EOH And kempfand

I have been following your Adventures with regards to stereo manipulation
Sadly every guide which i have tried, i have had the same problem occur many many times, when importing the mono wav files into surcode, some wavs cause surcode to warn me that the wavs are shorter than the others

Has anyone else had the same problems
as i have seen no one else mention this problem

I had given up on converting some of my cd collection into dts... due to the frustration caused... but i decided to give it one last shot due to the new way ... sadly no luck

may i add out of the 20+ attempts i had 1 success
i did war of the worlds sadly disk 1 worked but not disk 2 -_-

Regards
Brock101
Hi Brock,

I have had these problems too, but as kempfand said : nothing to worry about. Did you try the different I/O and DSP settings for the buffers in Bidule ? You could try increasing these to see if that solves the problem.....

Anyway, glad you enjoy working with our stuff, but it would be better to get the results you want !
I have done WotW myself several times. Actually it was the very first one I ever did, with the Cooledit/Aurora method. I also used it on several other bidules to compare. And..... the voice-center bidule gives an excellent result !
BTW I never had problems with the second disc of WotW !

I hope you will have better results in future.

Another tip : try to run on a clean machine (no other programs or tools or virussoftware running....

kind regards,

EoH
Eye of Horus is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 00:34   #531  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally posted by kempfand
ursamtl/Ursa,

Speaking for myself, I do not take your comments as overly negative, and I value the initial feedback which we were looking for. I and a few others like the 3 new bidules very much, and I think they beat the existing bidule methods, but they still can be improved (hopefully), and yes, you are right: maybe a joint effort gets us there. Maybe the bidules do not beat the outcome of a professional audio engineer who sits for 2 weeks to do an upmix, but this wouldn't be a fair comparison, as the bidules do a number of CD's in just an hour.

I would suggest (to all readers also) that you try the new bidules on a large number of various pieces of music. You might be disappointed if you just shoot for the most difficult pieces of music (did that myself in the first place). You might also be disappointed if you shoot for music you know well & love very much, as you might have too harse expectations to the outcome. You might be very happy if you compare what they do to standard DPL2 upmixes.


I think your comments might underline where we differ on this whole thing. If I'm going to invest the time to put into this experimentation, I don't want to do some rush job and neither do I want to spend my time on music that isn't my favorite or that isn't too complicated. As I said in an earlier post, I can do tests on CDRW so I'm not ending up with a bunch of written CDs wasted because I'll never listen to them again. It's just that I believe that quality results are possible, otherwise, I could use my time much more wisely by slapping on the Pro Logic II, cranking up some good music and getting on with the other tasks that fill my life outside of work.

I understand that's it's great to be able to automate this process as much as possible, and maybe that's what most people are looking for, but since each piece of music is unique and presents different demands, I think it's worth taking the time to tailor the upmix for each one. Hence, the ability to adjust and monitor the bidule's effect is important to me. I was happy to discover that my last bidule processed the music in such a way that the adjustments I provided are still easily heard if someone doesn't have a surround setup on his or her PC. It's so rewarding to be able to do this kind of adjustment to make the music the best it can be. I know it's not everyone's goal, but I don't think I should compromise my goal just because a bidule might not do justice to my favorite music or to a particular piece of music that's a bit more complex. Let's strive for excellence here and if whatever level we do attain will be higher than if we simply aimed for something that's a bit more convenient.


Quote:
The overall idea of the new bidules ("inner design" as you say) is simply as follows: Reproduce using Software (SW) what some of the Hardware (HW) Repurposing wizzards did & do.
As crazy as this might sound, I believe that SW Repurposing these days can do it, maybe even better. The same applies for Ambisonics, where the increased precision of internal processing of the SW tools just beats the established old HW units.

The idea of HW repurposing "per se" is IMHO not really a huge secret: "All" it does (i.e. what the HW people do) is to to apply (as an example) a little bit of SRS II and use that for the C, apply DPL 2 and use it for L & R, and finally apply a Sansui decode for the Surrounds. Some of the best HW Repurpose works I know of are done that way or similar (maybe even applying small variations to different parts of the album, or even to different parts within the same track).


This is interesting info. Where did you find this?

Quote:
Finally, a brief comment to your reply to Tantulus/Steve: The methods described here do proper Ambisonics, but the feeding material is not true UHJ. Most importantly, it lacks the 3D information (Z-axis), but who cares, as most of us don't have a 3D speaker setup.

The key thing is that feeding Stereo through an Ambisonics upmix still can produce surprisingly results on "Stereo". In fact, it often does ! For very dry recordings, Ambiophonics is probably a better way to do things (i.e. a Stereo Dipole plus Ambisonics as 'supportive' means 'only'). See also: Farina's comments regarding the concern about the usage of UHJ-to-Surround conversion for not-UHJ stereo recordings


Actually, I wrote Angelo Farina yesterday on this subject and he was kind enough to respond today. I didn't think to ask him for permission to quote his answer, but basically he confirmed my suspicion that we've been doing is not capable of producing the proper Ambisonic result. I don't think he'd mind my quoting the following from his email to me:
Quote:
Written by Angelo Farina to UrsaMtl on June 10, 2004
In a hiearchy scale, I would rate the surround recovered from a not UHJ recording, converted to B.format and finally decoded to 5.1 as 1 over 5. The same score for the original Dolby Surround decoder.

He did suggest that taking B-format impulse responses and convoluting the original stereo track with them, combining the results to one file and treating it as a B-format file by decoding it to derive the 5.1 feeds is quite a bit better. He rated it 4/5 as apposed to a true 5.1 recording, which he rated as 5/5.

Anyway, you are right in saying that processing a non-UHJ stereo file as Ambisonics does in fact produce an interesting result. I've got a couple of ideas I want to test out on a version 2 of UpMix Studio and then I'll post it.

Have a good weekend!
Steve (Ursa)
ursamtl is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 01:31   #532  |  Link
Shayne
Registered User
 
Shayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: northern canada
Posts: 215
Re: Re: Please Help

Quote:
Originally posted by Eye of Horus
Hi Brock,

I have had these problems too, ....

kind regards,

EoH
I have never seen this problem in 1934 encodings and therefore would wonder if it has something to do with 44.1 hz (i always use 48).

Peace
Shayne is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 07:37   #533  |  Link
alastor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10
HI kempf and eoh.

I tested your new bidules, voice center, and my conclusion....

! Great Works, sounds wonderful

Only a comments :

In my computer the modication for besweet d'ont work, may be because my processor ia AMD, i d'ont Know.

Usualy i use the six mono recorders without a problem, i use the old bidule for more of 25 films without incidents.

Best Regards
alastor is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 12:58   #534  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally posted by alastor
In my computer the modication for besweet d'ont work, may be because my processor ia AMD, i d'ont Know.
Hi Alastor,

Your computer being an AMD shouldn't make any difference. I've been using a 3-year-old Athlon Thunderbird 1.1 GHz for all this surround processing without any problems at all.

Regards,
Steve
ursamtl is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 16:45   #535  |  Link
alastor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10
Hi all

if any is interested :

I use these procedure for six mono recorders, six beacuse i added two filters hnm for lfe, power off in bidule, open input. indicates names of all outputs, play in input. Power On.

In my case all the files ever all the same lenght. Remember i only works with film soundtracks, i d'ont know if this procedure is also valid for small files.

Bye
alastor is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 18:12   #536  |  Link
trooper11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 106
ok i have a question, i was trying out the SAD5.1 Bidule using the guide that was provided here:

http://www.dtsac3forum.digitalzones.com/SAD51Bidule.htm

i thought i did everything correctly, i finished using bidule and i saw the out put of the one large wav file. i went to try and use besweet and i created the start.bat file, but everytime i try to run it, the screen just pops up quicklt then closes. i belive its saying error, unknown input file format. here is the line i pasted into the bat file:

BeSweet.exe -core( -input 01.wav -output 01- -type wav -6chfloat ) -ssrc( --rate 48000)

what am i doing wrong here? after i get the mono files, im going to be using them to convert to ac3 dd files, if i can just get this step to work. thanks.
trooper11 is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 19:43   #537  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally posted by trooper11
ok i have a question, i was trying out the SAD5.1 Bidule using the guide that was provided here:

http://www.dtsac3forum.digitalzones.com/SAD51Bidule.htm

i thought i did everything correctly, i finished using bidule and i saw the out put of the one large wav file. i went to try and use besweet and i created the start.bat file, but everytime i try to run it, the screen just pops up quicklt then closes. i belive its saying error, unknown input file format. here is the line i pasted into the bat file:

BeSweet.exe -core( -input 01.wav -output 01- -type wav -6chfloat ) -ssrc( --rate 48000)

what am i doing wrong here? after i get the mono files, im going to be using them to convert to ac3 dd files, if i can just get this step to work. thanks.
I ran into the same problem when I tried it. I got very wrapped up in trying different Ambisonic stuff so put the SAD51 on the back burner. I think it might have to do with long filenames in Windows and having to enclose them in quotation marks. As I said I didn't have time to test this theory, but I seem to recall reading something to that effect. I just found another source for ambisonic formulas so I want to try that out a bit more first, but I do intend to get back ot SAD51 for comparison purposes.

Regards,
Steve
ursamtl is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 19:56   #538  |  Link
Eye of Horus
Banned
 
Eye of Horus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally posted by trooper11
ok i have a question, i was trying out the SAD5.1 Bidule using the guide that was provided here:

http://www.dtsac3forum.digitalzones.com/SAD51Bidule.htm

i thought i did everything correctly, i finished using bidule and i saw the out put of the one large wav file. i went to try and use besweet and i created the start.bat file, but everytime i try to run it, the screen just pops up quicklt then closes. i belive its saying error, unknown input file format. here is the line i pasted into the bat file:

BeSweet.exe -core( -input 01.wav -output 01- -type wav -6chfloat ) -ssrc( --rate 48000)

what am i doing wrong here? after i get the mono files, im going to be using them to convert to ac3 dd files, if i can just get this step to work. thanks.

Everything in the line is correct, but....... Do you have the latest Plogue Bidule version ? (0.6601)
If so : goto the edit menu
Chose preferences
Goto the disk I/O tab
Make sure use WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE is set to "never"

I bet you have set it on "always" (default setting) or "adaptive".

Good luck and please let me know if this was the solution.

BTW when you like the output of SAD51inBidule, I recommend you to try our latest 3 bidules too !

Kind regards,

EoH
Eye of Horus is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 19:58   #539  |  Link
trooper11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 106
hmm ok, well i ownder why long filenames would be giving me this proble, my file name is 01.wav. could it be the location of besweet? it is ina folder that has spaces, which i know has caused problems in the past with other things, but this time the error was for the file type. i wish someone would take a look at this.
trooper11 is offline  
Old 11th June 2004, 20:30   #540  |  Link
ursamtl
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally posted by trooper11
hmm ok, well i ownder why long filenames would be giving me this proble, my file name is 01.wav. could it be the location of besweet? it is ina folder that has spaces, which i know has caused problems in the past with other things, but this time the error was for the file type. i wish someone would take a look at this.
Yes, I think the filename problem has to do with the Besweet location, but EoH is probably on track with the setting in Bidule. I know that has caused quite a few problems from what I've read.

Steve.
ursamtl is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.