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. |
8th September 2021, 01:02 | #21 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,988
|
Dolby's official E-AC3 encoders are dramatically better than what's available in ffmpeg, and in addition to being better quality the Dolby tooling (e.g. Dolby Encoding Engine) can properly analyze and set DRC and dialnorm metadata. They also of course support the 7.1 and Atmos / JOC flavors of E-AC3.
The AC3 and E-AC3 encoders in ffmpeg are fine for most folks use cases (mostly getting S/PDIF compatibility for 5.1 audio), but they definitely don't represent the bitstream capabilities
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
8th September 2021, 03:37 | #22 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Sea of Doubts
Posts: 28
|
Quote:
I would like to have a Dolby Encoder to test... but we hobbyists can't play with big boy's toys. |
|
8th September 2021, 15:00 | #24 | Link |
ffx264/ffhevc author
Join Date: May 2007
Location: /dev/video0
Posts: 1,843
|
Well, if your claims are true, then we should avoid encoding at very low bitrates for both AC-3 and E-AC-3. I personally encode all my Blu-rays with E-AC-3 5.1 @ 960 kbps and can't tell the difference between it and the source lossless DTS HD MA
|
8th September 2021, 20:28 | #25 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Sea of Doubts
Posts: 28
|
Quote:
I was interested in getting opinions on the results I have, wether to confirm or disprove them, and also to expose it to people with the knowledge to explain what's going on with ffmpeg's AC3/EAC3. At 960 I doubt we'd hear any difference even comparing to the proverbial choir of angels FWIW, I guess 640 is more than enough for 5.1 ffmpeg's AC3/EAC3 |
|
8th September 2021, 22:48 | #26 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 137
|
Quote:
Quote:
EC3 has slightly more bandwidth than AC3 at the same bitrate. I struggle to hear a significant difference with normal music, apart from artificial killer samples with sharp impulses such as "Everything Is Green" where ffmpeg is more smeared. But the reason for that is mainly my worn ears. Tools with the Dolby encoder are frustrating to use. They either require split channels, encode only one file at a time, or read from directshow with random delay and limited maximum file size, or the GUI is bloated and awkward, may require mapping of input channels. There is a plugin for Sound Forge, it can take floating point input, but seems to work only with stereo. j7n.sytes.net/misc/ac3samples/ |
||
9th September 2021, 01:22 | #27 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Sea of Doubts
Posts: 28
|
Quote:
Equinox in stereo:
pro-Ec3 is basically transparent to me here... I think I still hear something different somewhere but couldn't pinpoint it well enough so I might be simply wrong.
Sooo... pro-Ec3 > pro-AC3 > ffmpeg AC3 ... quite what everybody expected, I suppose I'll try 5.1 when I have time (If I have time) PS: Did I read something about Dolby Encoding Engine being used via CLI? I think that would speed things up when automating via scripting even if you need to split 5.1 tracks to 6 wav files. Once your script is working the process would be transparent to you. |
|
9th September 2021, 08:45 | #28 | Link | |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,988
|
Quote:
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
|
9th September 2021, 09:13 | #29 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Bremen, Germany
Posts: 36
|
dolby e-ac3 encoder will sound better in most cases i guess, unless a bitrate is used where it eventually won't make sense to do lossy encoding at all.
on the other side, there might be a bitrate, giving ffmepg a try over dolbys settings: Eventually you may listened to music, or sound in lossless high quality. A day later you istened to the same audio in lossy, for whatever reason and without even much hearing you can actually say after a few seconds, that this sounds horrible to you in some way. While doing comparisons directly, the difference might not be so obviously. This may sounds very subjective, but you can't just hear music, you can also feel it and much like this seems obviously for bass sounds (as we all know how it feels to stand near to huge speaker) there are also high frequencies stimulating the brain, even if we can't hear them with our ears, this is known known as "hypersonic effect". Consdering this, at a certainly high bitrate, like 150-200kbps per channel and more, ffmepg may not sound better, but feels better but that's just theory of course, i actually don't know if the dolby encoder will put more bits into high frequencies, if a lvl of quality is more or less saved by a certain bitrate already - could be the case, or not and the dolby encoder starts to waste bitrate at some point. Unfortunately i cant say much about ac3 vs eac3, only that you may not always should compare directly, but make a delayed test, and choose by your feeling. |
13th September 2021, 16:40 | #30 | Link |
Special SeeD
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mexico
Posts: 333
|
Old versions of Adobe Audition had an official EAC3 encoder, is way better than the one at FFMPEG, but not perfect, at 256 Kbps it created some ringing on sources with 15.7 Khz tones (The line frequency of old NTSC TVs, very common on dubs), I had to manually lowpass such files in order to avoid it.
|
14th September 2021, 12:54 | #31 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
AFAIK, there is no limit on maximum bitrate Last edited by Balling; 14th September 2021 at 13:11. |
|
14th September 2021, 12:57 | #32 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
|
|
14th September 2021, 13:01 | #33 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 539
|
Quote:
Last edited by Balling; 16th September 2021 at 09:26. |
|
31st January 2024, 00:55 | #34 | Link |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,542
|
Has there been any improvement in ffmpeg DDP implementation?
I have a 2.1 (L,R,LFE) DTS audio file that ffmpeg only could encode in 2.1 keeping proper channel configuration.
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
25th February 2024, 10:16 | #36 | Link |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,542
|
I always use DEE but it lacks some channel configurations, such as 2.1 and 6.1. The last time I used ffmpeg it went up to 5.1 and the quality wasn’t optimal. Hence my question about ffmpeg DDP improvement, if any.
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|