AC3/DTS to SPDIF Wav/Flac in AudioMuxer
320 views
Skip to first unread message
grill
Jan 22, 2011, 12:03:04 PM1/22/11
to SurroundSound
I've just noticed this excellent audio conversion feature in
AudioMuxer. With this conversion even DTS24/96 files can be perfectly
bitstreamed (eg. from foobar) to dts24/96 capable receivers :-)
Sorry if I didn't tell you new thing.
AudioMuxer. With this conversion even DTS24/96 files can be perfectly
bitstreamed (eg. from foobar) to dts24/96 capable receivers :-)
Sorry if I didn't tell you new thing.
Lokkerman
Jan 22, 2011, 12:06:39 PM1/22/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Grill
if i read you right this will convert DTS 96/24 to wav/flac? If it is this is a major plus; I'm thinking of all the Genesis SACD's which had DVD-As in DTS 96/24
Lokks
if i read you right this will convert DTS 96/24 to wav/flac? If it is this is a major plus; I'm thinking of all the Genesis SACD's which had DVD-As in DTS 96/24
Lokks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to Surrou...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSoun...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
grill
Jan 22, 2011, 1:14:23 PM1/22/11
to SurroundSound
This AM tool converts dts(24/96) files (extracted eg. from DVD-V
discs) to dts(24/96) WAV files which can and should be digitally sent
(bitstreamed) via SPDIF or HDMI to a DTS processor (eg. in a receiver)
for decoding. And dts(24/96) WAV files can be encoded to flac, of
course, to save space.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
discs) to dts(24/96) WAV files which can and should be digitally sent
(bitstreamed) via SPDIF or HDMI to a DTS processor (eg. in a receiver)
for decoding. And dts(24/96) WAV files can be encoded to flac, of
course, to save space.
>
> - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -
realafrica
Jan 22, 2011, 4:06:46 PM1/22/11
to SurroundSound
Please remind me about DTS24/96.
Is it not quite full lossless 24/96 or something?
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound-Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
Is it not quite full lossless 24/96 or something?
jolson
Jan 22, 2011, 4:18:18 PM1/22/11
to SurroundSound
It's not at all lossless. Don't have the specs in my head atm.
grill
Jan 22, 2011, 4:56:57 PM1/22/11
to SurroundSound
DTS 24/96 is a lossy audio compression system. I found it lossy indeed
in my experiments on foobar DVDA watermark neutralization plugin,
reported at QQ UG.
> > > > - Idézett szöveg megjelenítése -- Idézett szöveg elrejtése -
in my experiments on foobar DVDA watermark neutralization plugin,
reported at QQ UG.
Lokkerman
Jan 22, 2011, 7:20:17 PM1/22/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
Just to enlighten you all as to why i'm trying to listen to this is that at the time in QQ it was noted that the noise performance of the Genesis DTS tracks were better than the SACD.
Message has been deleted
Chris Lueders
Jan 23, 2011, 10:47:09 AM1/23/11
to SurroundSound
There seems to be a mix of different topics here:
1. Bitperfect reproduction
2. Streaming of dts files
3. Correct reproduction of dts files
1. is possible in foobar through WASAPI or ASIO, it only depends on
the selected output.
2. streaming is NOT possible through foobar out of the box, afaik.
foobar will instead decode to PCM and pass the decoded signal to the
receiver (Receiver will not light up because the internal codec is not
used). There are a few workarounds like a SPDIF output plugin which
work for some but not for others, depending on the hardware and OS
used.
3. Basically, Windows has an inbuilt limitation for dts files.
Usually, they can only be reproduced as 48khz, even if they're 96khz
(The 96khz part would be used for a very small frequency range anyway.
foobar will reproduce dts files in a variety of ways which can be
changed by simply changing the file extension.
4. The case of wav-dts is a special case and is often misunderstood
since WAV can refer to either a file format or a container format. In
the case of WAVDTS, dts is simply embedded in a wav-container but is
still lossless. When converting these files to FLAC, a lossless file
format, one transcoding effectively from lossy to lossless. This
should be avoided at all costs, because people usually don't keep a
history of their files and will finally "sell" those files as
genuinely lossless to others.
Sorry for ranting, please do point out if there are errors in my
statements.
1. Bitperfect reproduction
2. Streaming of dts files
3. Correct reproduction of dts files
1. is possible in foobar through WASAPI or ASIO, it only depends on
the selected output.
2. streaming is NOT possible through foobar out of the box, afaik.
foobar will instead decode to PCM and pass the decoded signal to the
receiver (Receiver will not light up because the internal codec is not
used). There are a few workarounds like a SPDIF output plugin which
work for some but not for others, depending on the hardware and OS
used.
3. Basically, Windows has an inbuilt limitation for dts files.
Usually, they can only be reproduced as 48khz, even if they're 96khz
(The 96khz part would be used for a very small frequency range anyway.
foobar will reproduce dts files in a variety of ways which can be
changed by simply changing the file extension.
4. The case of wav-dts is a special case and is often misunderstood
since WAV can refer to either a file format or a container format. In
the case of WAVDTS, dts is simply embedded in a wav-container but is
still lossless. When converting these files to FLAC, a lossless file
format, one transcoding effectively from lossy to lossless. This
should be avoided at all costs, because people usually don't keep a
history of their files and will finally "sell" those files as
genuinely lossless to others.
Sorry for ranting, please do point out if there are errors in my
statements.
Lokkerman
Jan 23, 2011, 4:47:42 PM1/23/11
to surrou...@googlegroups.com
No - on my count DTS in most forms has many audible limitations. Although I had said on record that hardware encoded DTS sounds amazingly better than software encoded. My point was that Neil Wilkes noted quite a long time ago the Genesis 96/24's on DTS were better on noise than the SACDs - sounded like an oppertune time to compare.
Chris - most of us moved on from Win Kmixer (to ASIO) ages ago so I was anticipating a plug in that could translate DTS 96/24 into the "core + extension" contained in the ETSI document that I posted on our SSGG site ages ago. As yet no-one has answered the call on whether or not this is do-able.
going back over ten years ago or more there was a lot of Hi-Fi pundits - god-bless their credibility - that said that DTS was the next best thing. This meant that some record companies intended release of digital quad re-releases in DTS as opposed to any other format. I know of a few that were never released to the market (thanks to the guys who gave them to me) I have one very cherished one to me that I will release once I can find a great DTS demuxer to lossless wav and then hopefully throw some modern techniqus of getting it to sound as "lossless" as possible; not having the aduio masters in lossless. Note that in any release all the details would be covered off.
Chris - most of us moved on from Win Kmixer (to ASIO) ages ago so I was anticipating a plug in that could translate DTS 96/24 into the "core + extension" contained in the ETSI document that I posted on our SSGG site ages ago. As yet no-one has answered the call on whether or not this is do-able.
going back over ten years ago or more there was a lot of Hi-Fi pundits - god-bless their credibility - that said that DTS was the next best thing. This meant that some record companies intended release of digital quad re-releases in DTS as opposed to any other format. I know of a few that were never released to the market (thanks to the guys who gave them to me) I have one very cherished one to me that I will release once I can find a great DTS demuxer to lossless wav and then hopefully throw some modern techniqus of getting it to sound as "lossless" as possible; not having the aduio masters in lossless. Note that in any release all the details would be covered off.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages