how to make DTS 2.0 & DTS 1.0

[mkvonly]

Many BD-s of older movies have 2.0 or 1.0 channel audios (LPCM and DTS 1500+ KB/s).
Some even have DTS @ 256 KB/s and they sound perfect for old recording.
Is there a program I could use to make DTS 2.0 256 KB/s ? AAC even at 320 KB/s CBR looses a lot from crisp and volume.
All the programs that I know of make 5.1 DTS only. Thank you very much.

[Island_Dweller]

AC3 for stereo @ 224 kbps and mono @ 160 kbps should be just excellent. Use Aften for ac3 encoding.

DTS would require commercial software, I think. DTS-HD Master Audio Encoder Suite OR SurCode DVD–DTS Encoder might do what you're after.

[El Heggunte]

Besides the DTS-HD Monster Audio Encoder Suite, you can use the freeware dcaenc, which can generate files @ nearly-ANY valid bitrate and ANY valid samplerate:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/348702-dcaenc-2-[MinGW-build]

So far, all the files created with dcaenc have received a big-OK when tested by the "official" DTS-HD StreamTools.

The old and outdated Surcode DTS Encoder is forever bound to only three bitrates and only two sampling frequencies , so you have been warned.

[El Heggunte]

Is there a program I could use to make DTS 2.0 256 KB/s ?

According to this post in the Doom9 board, for 48kHz stereo dcaenc cannot go below 271kbps.

If that's "unacceptable" for you, you'd beter choose the Master Audio Encoder Suite then.

[Island_Dweller]

Yes, the DTS-HD MA Suite is monstruous and although Surcode is old, they both got the job done for 6 channel encodes, when I last used them. But I learn something new every time I read a thread here . I will definitely try out dcaenc.

[mkvonly]

you can use the freeware dcaenc, which can generate files @ nearly-ANY valid bitrate and ANY valid samplerate:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/348702-dcaenc-2-[MinGW-build]

Thanks for the quick help, how can I use it with foobar? I don't understand "working with codes", command lines, I'm a GUI noob guy,
do I have to copy dcaenc.exe in Crograms/foobar/components or what? Sorry to be such a noob.
Couldn't be used in eac3to? 271 KB/s sounds great! I use win 7 64.
I had DTS-HD Monster Audio Encoder Suite installed but it was useless to me, had no idea how to use it ;-(
Thank you very much.

[El Heggunte]

you can use the freeware dcaenc, which can generate files @ nearly-ANY valid bitrate and ANY valid samplerate:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/348702-dcaenc-2-[MinGW-build]

Thanks for the quick help, how can I use it with foobar? I don't understand "working with codes", command lines, I'm a GUI noob guy,
do I have to copy dcaenc.exe in Crograms/foobar/components or what? Sorry to be such a noob.

I'm still using foobar2000 0.9.x, so the instructions can be somewhat different for the latest versions:

-- Menu "Library", item "Configure";

-- goto Tools -> Converter, button "Add New";

-- in the window "Commandline Encoder Settings - New Preset", click on the dropdown box and select "Custom";

-- etc.

JMHO --- stereo DTS @ 44100Hz or 48000Hz gets "perceptually transparent" somewhere between 448kbps and 512kbps, so I've chosen the following parameters:

-i - -o %d -b 448

Notice that dcaenc does NOT work with 24-bit .WAV files, but only with 16-bit and 32-bit inputs.

Couldn't be used in eac3to? 271 KB/s sounds great! I use win 7 64.

If you manage to convince madshi (the author of eac3to) to add direct support for OTHER audio encoders in his software masterpiece , that would be great indeed .

[Island_Dweller]

Notice that dcaenc does NOT work with 24-bit .WAV files, but only with 16-bit and 32-bit inputs.

As a possible workaround, opening a 24 bit wav file in an audio editor and saving it as a 32 bit wav file should work, right?

[mkvonly]

[QUOTE=El Heggunte;2214241][QUOTE=mkvonly;2214227]

....

-- goto Tools -> Converter, button "Add New";

-- in the window "Commandline Encoder Settings - New Preset", click on the dropdown box and select "Custom"...

I have the newest foobar (v.1.2.2) installed and as you see in the pic there is no "Add New" & "Commandline Encoder Settings - New Preset".


Maybe I'll have to install your version to do all these steps, then re-install the new version over it and the presets will be all there?
Also I would like to output under 300 KB/s DTS 2.0 or 1.0, I would use it for very old audio tracks only(they don't sound that great). 448 KB/s would result not much smaller then monkey or flac I'm afraid.
I tried to add preset as shown on pic below;

but got an error "1 out of 1 tracks converted with major problems.

Source: "C:\Users\....Noise-Mix\2\Audio CD(2).ape"
An error occurred while writing to file (The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1 (0x00000001); please re-check parameters) : "D:\Audio CD(2).dts"
Additional information:
Encoder stream format: 44100Hz / 2ch / 16bps
Command line: "D:\...exe\foobar\RENBRU5DMi5Y\program\dcaenc. exe" -i - -o "Audio CD(2).dts" -b 448
Working folder: D:\

Conversion failed: The encoder has terminated prematurely with code 1 (0x00000001); please re-check parameters"

Thank you so much.

[El Heggunte]

@ mkvonly: you can choose any bitrate which is ACCEPTED by the dcaenc library ---

--- in the other thread, bat999 chose 320kbps, alright.

Also, dcaenc accepts only .WAV files as a valid input --- therefore, first you'd better convert your .APE files to .WAVs

@ Island_Dweller:

yes, that workaround shall work.

[mkvonly]

@ mkvonly: you can choose any bitrate which is ACCEPTED by the dcaenc library ---

--- in the other thread, bat999 chose 320kbps, alright.

Also, dcaenc accepts only .WAV files as a valid input --- therefore, first you'd better convert your .APE files to .WAVs

With wav input (44.1 KHz,Format PCM 16 bits) was the same error ;-(
Wow, unbelievable! I installed your version and converted successfully to DTS 2.0 320 KB/s!
Wird that with MPC I hear only noise but with VLC plays nicely, very nice quality!
Sadly if I over install the new version the DTS 2.0 320 KB/s preset won't show up ;-( so I have to stick with the old version I suppose.

[El Heggunte]

With wav input (44.1 KHz,Format PCM 16 bits) was the same error

Are you running foobar2000 as Administrator
Since you're on Windows 7, you really should be doing so.
Especially because of the chosen output folder:

Working folder: D:\

So try another output folder ---

--- because Windows is very-picky about letting the user write to the root directory of a HDD.

[El Heggunte]

Wow, unbelievable! I installed your version and converted successfully to DTS 2.0 320 KB/s!
Wird that with MPC I hear only noise but with VLC plays nicely, very nice quality!

Congratulations!

And yes, I am a proud Windows-7 hater

[El Heggunte]

Sadly if I over install the new version the DTS 2.0 320 KB/s preset won't show up ;-( so I have to stick with the old version I suppose.

You DON'T have to use foobar2000 only as a GUI for dcaenc. I've never used LameXP nor Hybrid, BUT they both can use dcaenc IIRC.

[mkvonly]

Sadly if I over install the new version the DTS 2.0 320 KB/s preset won't show up ;-( so I have to stick with the old version I suppose.

You DON'T have to use foobar2000 only as a GUI for dcaenc. I've never used LameXP nor Hybrid, BUT they both can use dcaenc IIRC.

Thanks for the tip (Hybrid), it seems to be a very complex cool tool, I just have to figure out how to output DTS 2.0. As for Ac3Filer you were right, I couldn't play a movie with AAC 5.0 (yes, 5.0, not 5.1) through hdmi with MPC internal filters, but now I can thx to AC3filter.
Also the DTS 2.0 plays perfectly now with MPC with ac3filter in action

[poisondeathray]

How would stereo AC3@256kb/s compare to DTS@256kb/s ? Should be better shouldn't it ? I'd expect it to be more compatible with players

[mkvonly]

How would stereo AC3@256kb/s compare to DTS@256kb/s ? Should be better shouldn't it ? I'd expect it to be more compatible with players

Sorry to say this but the "home made ac3" has the worst quality of all. AAC, OOG, MP3..all are better. Forget AC3 please, I opened this dts 2.0 and DTS 1.0-thread for the very simple reason that DTS sounds best. It sounds better and louder then mp3 and aac at same bitrate (256-320 apx).
Original AC3-s from DVD-s and BD-s are a completely different matter, they indeed sound fantastic but one just can't reach nearly that quality with conversion with software as far as I know.

[poisondeathray]

How would stereo AC3@256kb/s compare to DTS@256kb/s ? Should be better shouldn't it ? I'd expect it to be more compatible with players

Sorry to say this but the "home made ac3" has the worst quality of all. AAC, OOG, MP3..all are better. Forget AC3 please, I opened this dts 2.0 and DTS 1.0-thread for the very simple reason that DTS sounds best. It sounds better and louder then mp3 and aac at same bitrate (256-320 apx).
Original AC3-s from DVD-s and BD-s are a completely different matter, they indeed sound fantastic but one just can't reach nearly that quality with conversion with software as far as I know.

ok "home made" ac3 is the "worst?" But "home made" dts is ok ?

Is there proof, or just your ancedotal evidence ?

I'm asking because I don't know. I ask because people have done comparisons between DTS and AC3, but I don't know of any at this bitrate range

[El Heggunte]

How would stereo AC3@256kb/s compare to DTS@256kb/s ? Should be better shouldn't it ? I'd expect it to be more compatible with players

That's a VERY-pertinent question. It's a big surprise and a big shame that the "professional audiophiles" @ Hydrogenaudio appear to solemnly ignore the existence and the importance not of dcaenc, but of the DTSHDMAS itself. In the beginning, when there were only Surcode and the hardware DCA encoder, people did the "impossible" to compare AC3 with DTS. But now that there are better and "more-complete" DCA compressors available, *no* "ABX-maniac" cares about them.

[jman98]

I'm asking because I don't know. I ask because people have done comparisons between DTS and AC3, but I don't know of any at this bitrate range

My general experience is that when people say things like the OP said, they are using their ears as the only test. It's well known that DTS does frequency roll off and volume boosting and the last one in particular causes the average person to perceive it as being of "higher quality". Audio studies have shown that most people will perceive a louder sound as being of higher quality to an absolutely identical sound at a lower volume.

When people start arguing that AC3 "sucks", I just let them have their way because logic is no longer part of the equation. Both Dolby and DTS make people who get a look at the internals sign NDAs, but it's long been suspected that AC3 is more faithful to the true original sound than DTS. Please note that I am not talking about HD audio formats but good old AC3 and DTS for DVD.

Comparisons are difficult because I don't personally know of any audio editors that support DTS. Maybe there are some, but I don't know what they are. Being able compare histograms would be useful, but I've never seen such.

[poisondeathray]

Comparisons are difficult because I don't personally know of any audio editors that support DTS. Maybe there are some, but I don't know what they are. Being able compare histograms would be useful, but I've never seen such.

Why would that be an inpediment ? You can decode them to uncompressed pcm wav

But some people might make the mistake of not decoding it correctly (they might inadvertently have applied post processing somewhere in the workflow)

[Island_Dweller]

@ El Heggunte : cheers for the tip!

Regarding ac3 256 kbps vs DTS 256 kbps, loudness usually fools people into thinking DTS sounds better. (dialnorm or drc issue)

But take a standard 5.1 lossless bluray audio track.
Encode it to :
1) 640 kbps ac3
2) 768 or 1536kbps dts

1) wins hands down as it offers better compression for nearly identical quality as 2)

I use the ac3 encoder inside Sound Forge Pro, btw, if anyone cares

[El Heggunte]

FWIW:

256kbps MAY be okay for stereo DTS @ 44.1kHz or 48kHz, as long as the audio does not include many very-high frequencies (for example, a dialogue or a conversation with some background noise). Instrumental music OTOH should require more bitrate, of course. Many months ago, I sent to the author of eac3to a sample file, Janis Joplin's "Mercedes-Benz" compressed @ 234.28125kbps , and it did sound fine. Also, the DTSHDMAS sets 192kbps as the minimum bitrate for mono (1.0) outputs. But in the very-first versions of the Master Audio Suite, that minimum was 126kbps. Besides, the 576kbps bitrate was removed in the later versions, and only the devil knows why.

[mkvonly]

..and again this thread's title says it clear
how to make DTS 2.0 & DTS 1.0

so AC3 lovers be so kind and bugger off to a thread that says DTS vs AC3 or open one yourselves, and there you can praise your beloved AC3.
If you don't know how to test the difference between 2 tracks the best way is to watch a video and switch between the tracks. If you don't have some nice (150-300 US $) head-phones use speakers from hi-fi loud.. Who thinks that sound forge does magic trans-code a HD audio to AC3 640 from a BD that has HD audio AND AC3 640, then compare those two AC3 640-s switching between the tracks while playing the video...and voila the surprise. Original AC3 will sound a lot better then your cheap AC3.

"Home made" AC3 640 to me sounds like coming from kitchen from a saucepan while DTS 768 sounds crispy and loud out from the action. Especially in action movies is true. According to some tests I can hear up to 19 KHz and I could tell the difference in quality between MP3 320 vrb vs MP3 320 cbr and CBR sounded better, even though on some forums some claim vrb is better. I only trust my ears period. I only wanted to know how to make DTS 2.0, now I know thx to El Heggunte, all the rest of blah-blah is irrelevant. Cheers

[Island_Dweller]

Fyi, loudness is not a measure of quality. I use a pair of Sennheiser HD600, so it's not like I'm using a pair of cheap earbuds and on-board motherboard audio to make wild claims.

And saying a professional audio editor like Sound Forge, whose ac3 encoder is licensed by Dolby, makes "cheap" ac3 does not make sense to me. If you start with a 24 bit lossless file, any licensed Dolby encoder will produce nearly identically the same output, at the same settings and bitrate as you get on a DVD/BD.

Out of curiosity, and please don't take this as me trying to start some silly war, we can agree to disagree as gentlemen, what decoders are you using for ac3 and dts?

[mkvonly]

Fyi, loudness is not a measure of quality.

Dolby guys come again and again with the argument that DTS fans are "idiots" thinking DTS sounds better, ONLY because it's louder. pathetic argument.
If you don't realize that (most of the times) AC3 won't deliver the very deep strong "boom-boom" bass and the very high "sssss-ing" that DTS delivers we have nothing to discuss about.

And saying a professional audio editor like Sound Forge, whose ac3 encoder is licensed by Dolby, makes "cheap" ac3 does not make sense to me.

It will make sense if you test them. Trans-code (from an Action movie Bluray) a 5.1 DTS-HD or LPCM to AC3 640 with your beautiful Sound Forge and one to DTS 768 (with sonic + surcode)... Then mux those two tracks in mkv then play the mkv to surround system and play them a bit louder then usually swithing between tracks in scenes with "interesting sounds". Convince yourself not others. The best way to find out is to make samples.

...what decoders are you using for ac3 and dts?

Why would I decode AC3? If you mean true-hd I decoded it with nero and with lib and resulted the same. Finally DTS 768 sounded the same as the original AC3 640 from the disc (once or twice very slightly worse). So I don't trans-code true-hd any more, I keep the AC3 instead. DTS-hd I decode with sonic, I tried with arcsoft as well but I had a feeling sonic was slightly better so I use always sonic now.
I have to say that half the time AC3 640 sounds similar to DTS 768 but in tracks with a lot of action and weird sounds, DTS sounds better (to me). Oh, by the way I gave sound forge a try then uninstalled it the same day after encoding two tracks and they both sounded inferior to the original AC3 640 lol. So much about "licensed by Dolby".

From now on I will ignore all AC3 vs DTS comments on this thread, why don't you take them else-where, the net is full of such topics.
I wish folks would be more concerned/constructive here how to make DTS 2.0 & DTS 1.0.

[Island_Dweller]

I meant, which audio decoders do you use for playback? Or are you sending them to an external receiver?

Another fyi, sonic can't decode 7.1 dts-hd, it's limited to 5.1 or 6.1, which is why Eac3to sets Arcsoft as default.
Also, dts-hd ma is lossless. Both sonic and arcsoft will decode bit-perfect, keeping in mind sonic's limitation with regard to 7.1.

I assure you I have no intention to fight with you over this, I'd rather find out why you find such a discrepancy between the two, so I can improve my own setup, if need be.

If you don't realize that (most of the times) AC3 won't deliver the very deep strong "boom-boom" bass and the very high "sssss-ing" that DTS delivers we have nothing to discuss about.

Have you tried the 640 ac3 that comes with the Dark Knight bluray? Or for that matter, any 448/384 ac3 that came with a blockbuster action movie DVD before Blurays ever existed?

I never accused you of being an idiot nor do I claim of being a "dolby guy". I keep trying to be friendly.

As far as Sound Forge goes. If I were to sit in an office, make an ac3 track with SF, author it to DVD/BD, and then send it to you for testing, I have a feeling your opinion would be rather different.

I think El Heggunte already responded to your query. Most DTS encoders are commercial. DCAEnc is the only freeware encoder that's around. DTS-HD MA Suite will go down to a minimum of 255 kbps for stereo and 192 for mono. But you'll have to encode it as *.dtshd and then extract the core with eac3to.

[jman98]

I never accused you of being an idiot nor do I claim of being a "dolby guy". I keep trying to be friendly.

True enough, but by asking him for help you are cutting into his monkey spanking time. It's a question of priorities.

[Island_Dweller]

True enough, but by asking him for help you are cutting into his monkey spanking time. It's a question of priorities.

Maybe you're right. I dare not speculate