VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    EDM, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Is there a difference between the two? Which one is better? This is probably gonna sound stupid but I'm curious. :/
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    EDM, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    Dolby Pro Logic II (2000) - Improved Dolby Pro Logic. Upmix Stereo to Surround 5.1 in either Movie, Music, or Game mode.
    Channels: FL FR C SL SR SUB
    So it is better. Cool thanks.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    If it is done correctly...

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  5. More channels isn't necessarily better. If the source was stereo adding fake rear channels doesn't improve it.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member budwzr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    City Of Angels
    Search Comp PM
    In the old days, we had "Quad", which introduced front and rear fading into a stereo system. We thought that was a tremendous improvement.

    "Dolby" was never popular back then because hiss lives in the same frequencies as high hats, tambs, shakers, etc. So your music gets a haircut in that area.

    To me, Surround Sound is like 3D. Yeah, it's more "in your face", but meh, it's kind of blingy too, and gets on the nerves when overdone.

    A good meatloaf is defined by it's basic attributes like hamburg-to-breadcrumbs ratio and tangy/sweet bark. When you try to bling it up, it's rarely better. Same with music. When the bling stands out, it's just bling, and gratuitous bling doesn't fly on its own.

    Swirling helicopter blades are about as enjoyable as a trash truck emptying a dumpster and panning the dump high/low/left/right.

    What's my friggin point? Yeah, I like EDM too. hahaha
    Last edited by budwzr; 25th Jul 2013 at 10:44.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    EDM, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    More channels isn't necessarily better. If the source was stereo adding fake rear channels doesn't improve it.
    Yeah that's the thing. The original is stereo and it's confusing because MeGUI says Downmix and Wiki says Upmix. I thought maybe Dolby Pro Logic II will make it sound better but guess stereo is the best I'll get. ...but Dolby says
    Dolby Pro Logic II transforms movie soundtracks and stereo music into 5.1 channels of surround sound.
    Or no wait...Maybe they mean stereo speakers will sound like surround sound because the 5.1 was converted to DPL2 stereo...but stereo to DPL2 is garbage because it'll be missing pieces. That's what I'm thinking. Lol I'm a noob when it comes to surround sound. I think that's what you mean jagabo.

    Originally Posted by budwzr View Post
    What's my friggin point? Yeah, I like EDM too. hahaha
    Lol. ...Idk what to pick now. Maybe it's like you said, basically it's just personal preference.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by ILoveEDM View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    More channels isn't necessarily better. If the source was stereo adding fake rear channels doesn't improve it.
    Yeah that's the thing. The original is stereo and it's confusing because MeGUI says Downmix and Wiki says Upmix. I thought maybe Dolby Pro Logic II will make it sound better but guess stereo is the best I'll get. ...but Dolby says
    Dolby Pro Logic II transforms movie soundtracks and stereo music into 5.1 channels of surround sound.
    Or no wait...Maybe they mean stereo speakers will sound like surround sound because the 5.1 was converted to DPL2 stereo...but stereo to DPL2 is garbage because it'll be missing pieces. That's what I'm thinking. Lol I'm a noob when it comes to surround sound. I think that's what you mean jagabo.
    Dolby Pro Logic is a method of encoding four audio channels (front left, front center, front right, rear) into two audio channels. With sourroung sound decoding the sounds are separated into their original channels and routed to the correct speakers. Without surround sound decoding you still have acceptable stereo sound. Pro Logic II expands on that to add more channels: front left, front center, front right, rear right, rear left, and sub woofer.

    If you have multiple channels to start with (studios often record each instrument/voice/effect on a separate track so they can be placed wherever they want them) the effect works as intended. But if you only have a mono or stereo track to start with, simulating those extra channels doesn't necessarily improve the overall sound.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by ILoveEDM View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    More channels isn't necessarily better. If the source was stereo adding fake rear channels doesn't improve it.
    Yeah that's the thing. The original is stereo and it's confusing because MeGUI says Downmix and Wiki says Upmix. I thought maybe Dolby Pro Logic II will make it sound better but guess stereo is the best I'll get. ...but Dolby says
    Dolby Pro Logic II transforms movie soundtracks and stereo music into 5.1 channels of surround sound.
    Or no wait...Maybe they mean stereo speakers will sound like surround sound because the 5.1 was converted to DPL2 stereo...but stereo to DPL2 is garbage because it'll be missing pieces. That's what I'm thinking. Lol I'm a noob when it comes to surround sound. I think that's what you mean jagabo.
    Dolby Pro Logic is a method of encoding four audio channels (front left, front center, front right, rear) into two audio channels. With sourroung sound decoding the sounds are separated into their original channels and routed to the correct speakers. Without surround sound decoding you still have acceptable stereo sound. Pro Logic II expands on that to add more channels: front left, front center, front right, rear right, rear left, and sub woofer.

    If you have multiple channels to start with (studios often record each instrument/voice/effect on a separate track so they can be placed wherever they want them) the effect works as intended. But if you only have a mono or stereo track to start with, simulating those extra channels doesn't necessarily improve the overall sound.
    Well said jagabo but people will still argue the point no matter how well you explain it.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  10. I've never thought about the Dolby Pro Logic downmixing option before so I thought I'd try it using MeGUI. So far the result isn't great but I'm not sure if it's an encoding or decoding issue. Anyone know if ffdshow's Dolby Pro Logic filter is any good?

    I downmixed a dts file to Pro Logic II while converting it to flac with MeGUI. I then used MeGUI to convert the flac Pro Logic file to a multichannel flac file and ffdshow to apply Prologic decoding and output 5.1ch. Finally I loaded the 5.1ch flac file into Audacity and listened to the channels individually while comparing them to the original dts. The surround channels were a mess compared to the original (I compared sections where the surround channels contained music).

    The object of the exercise was to downmix to a lossy codec using Prologic II and decode that to a multichannel wave file to see how much the lossy encoding messed with the Prologic surround sound, but before I can do that I've got to find a lossless method which works..... or is Dolby Prologic II just really poor quality begin with? After encoding/decoding and listening to the surround channels individually they sounded like they'd had a phasing effect applied to them. And a lot of it.

    If Pro Logic II should produce reasonable sounding surround sound I could try a different encoding method but I'm not sure of another way to decode that back to a multichannel file, aside from using DirectShow and ffdshow. If my test is as good as Prologic II gets, I wouldn't bother with it.
    Quote Quote  
  11. I have a PLII receiver and it sounds fine to me. The way I watch movies, it decodes to stereo to send over SPDIF then the receiver gets it and can matrix it into surround using PLII.

    I never thought it sounded bad. But when I connect to the one upstairs that is a bit better of a receiver, it can decode DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 and passthough via SPDIF to the receiver sounds better than decoding to stereo and then using PLII to rebuild the surround.
    Last edited by hogger129; 3rd Aug 2013 at 22:35.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hogger129
    I thought all Pro Logic did is takes a 2ch signal and simulates surround sound? I thought this was not as good as having an actual 5.1 signal.
    Pro Logic one only had mono rear channels.

    Pro Logic 2 simulates the full 5.1 experience.

    I don't have a pro logic 2 amp so I can't comment on how well it works.

    But yes as you point out hogger129 using the original 5.1 track is best when available. But there is nothing wrong with playing with virtual surround sound for non 5.1 sources. Though they may tend to sound hollow and "fake" at best compared to a properly produced "real" 5.1 track.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  13. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    I thought all Pro Logic did is takes a 2ch signal and simulates surround sound? I thought this was not as good as having an actual 5.1 signal.
    Dolby Pro Logic encodes 4 channels of sound into an ordinary stereo sound track,with a proper dolby pro logic system will decode the stereo signal to play in 4 channel mode,it doesn't simulate surround sound only.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    Originally Posted by hogger129
    I thought all Pro Logic did is takes a 2ch signal and simulates surround sound? I thought this was not as good as having an actual 5.1 signal.
    Pro Logic one only had mono rear channels.

    Pro Logic 2 simulates the full 5.1 experience.

    I don't have a pro logic 2 amp so I can't comment on how well it works.

    But yes as you point out hogger129 using the original 5.1 track is best when available. But there is nothing wrong with playing with virtual surround sound for non 5.1 sources. Though they may tend to sound hollow and "fake" at best compared to a properly produced "real" 5.1 track.

    So I assume it's because 5.1 has metadata that tells it how to decode rather than PLII where it estimates to simulate surround sound, that 5.1 sounds better?

    I have a Phillips/Magnavox receiver that has PLII (wish it had DTS also), but I guess I could never tell a huge difference. My speakers are not exactly high end so that could be why I can't tell the difference.

    I think when I get out into my own place soon here, I am going to track down a nice Pioneer receiver and some decent speakers for my movie/music setup.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member turk690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    There is no such thing as Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Pro Logic II encoding. They are decoding circuits, that rely on certain frequency, phase, and timing cues in the decoder to steer appropriate content to the created rear and center front channels. These decoders have processor-driven logic to create a convincing 4 channels out of 2 original ones on the DVD, CD, VHS tape, etc. Note that, in math you can't solve for 4 unknowns out of merely 2 variables, but as far, as Dolby Pro Logic is concerned, with enough cues, convincing matrixes can be made out of the two channels.
    This all started out as 4 analogue channels in the master (Lf, Rf, Cf, rear), and they were matrix encoded as Dolby Surround for playback media. I don't know if ffdshow or MeGUI or whatnot that can do the encoding is clear about this.
    So it's silly talking about DPL II encoding this and that when clearly it is not (even if so labeled and causes confusion); a choice should be offered only as Dolby Surround encoding for 4 original tracks available in your source or NLE. Then on decoding, this is where choices can be presented for Dolby Pro Logic/II, etc.
    Encoding for Dolby Surround is fairly straightforward it can even be done with Audacity if you have the 4 original channels in an NLE situation; a search on the web can give the equations. Basically, the Cf channel is lowered by -3dB, then mixed equally with Lf and Rf.
    The rear channel is low-passed at 7KHz, given a certain delay (I don't know the precise millisec figure), split into two, one the original and the other phase-inverted, and each also mixed with the Lf and Rf. So basically composite left = original Lf+0.707Cf+rear, and composite right is = original Rf+0.707Cf-rear.
    All this mangling is now to be decoded by your favorite wretched Dolby Pro Logic decoder, h/w or s/w, to partially (but convincingly) recover the four original Lf, Cf, Rf, and rear. So it's basically true, that since the gumption is in the decoding, there can be better, best, and just so-so Dolby Pro Logic/II decoders.
    Occasions rose where unencoded conventional stereo audio would be forced through a DPL decoder, and the result is just absolute pits. Since a lot of energy in an ordinary music track (like low frequencies) is mono, and therefore equally present in the L and R channels, a DPL decoder would assume they were part of the center channel being attempted to decode. This often resulted in a lopsided situation where the center channel would be blaring away on playback, but almost nothing from L, R, and rear. To correct this, sophisticated formulas and complex processor circuitry were yet cooked up to give us the next version Dolby Pro Logic II, so that whatever played out from the four channels sounded mostly equitable, whether or they were duly-encoded Dolby Surround tracks, or just plain jane stereo music tracks.
    Of course, this was all decades ago and is now largely mute. We don't have to worry about matrixing and shit anymore because discrete-channel Dolby Digital and DTS (and their HD counterparts) are here.
    For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
    Quote Quote  
  16. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by turk690 View Post
    There is no such thing as Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Pro Logic II encoding.
    When a Dolby Surround/logic soundtrack is created, four channels of sound are matrix-encoded into an ordinary stereo sound track.Handbrake also lets you choose dolby pro II for audio encoding.
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    Originally Posted by turk690 View Post
    There is no such thing as Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Pro Logic II encoding.
    When a Dolby Surround/logic soundtrack is created, four channels of sound are matrix-encoded into an ordinary stereo sound track.Handbrake also lets you choose dolby pro II for audio encoding.
    I thought I saw that Wii or Wii U games are actually encoded with Dolby Pro Logic 2 and not dolby digital. I could be wrong. I think I'll google that and check out a game spec read out. Though with the hardware upgrade of the wii u there should be no reason it can't do straight dolby digital unless it requires an extra licensing fee above pro logic 2.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member turk690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    Handbrake also lets you choose dolby pro II for audio encoding.
    Handbrake and others, IMHO, add to the confusion by giving a choice for DPL II encoding.
    Ancient Dolby Surround is an analogue encoding scheme of the 80s and 90s that attempts to put 4 discrete channels into 2, and there is only one way to do that scheme as Dolby implements. It can also be decoded in the analogue domain with a Dolby Surround decoder. To heighten perceived channel separation, etc, Dolby Pro Logic and Dolby Pro Logic II decoding schemes were developed. The Logic part of that moniker is the processor circuitry that minutely detects the differences in the channels; for example, if there is a difference if, say at least 3dB between the Cf channel and any of the others, then gain in Cf is increased even more and all the others decreased, all on the fly.
    In the original setting, an encoder would have the 4 discrete audio channels with which to encode into a Dolby Surround 2-ch track, with a view to it being passed later through a Dolby Pro Logic/II to retrieve imperfect but passable versions of those 4 original audio channels. One thing I infer from the OP of this thread, and of what Handbrake and others purport to achieve, is that they have a conventional stereo 2-ch track, and of how it can be treated so that deliberately passing it later through a DPL II decoder can make it sound, well, "better".
    It's a bit circuitous but I can imagine, the 1st steps would probably be to wring out a mono track from those two channels (to make the Cf track), then an out of phase track (for rear), apply appropriate levels, frequency response characteristics, and delays, then remix the lot back into two using a Dolby Surround scheme. This may or may not be how Handbrake et al is achieving it. If it is, IMHO it's just silly and needless because genuine DPL/II decoders, at least those who adhere to specs
    and more, are sophisticated enough to know when a conventional (non-Dolby Surround encoded) stereo track is being fed to it, and therefore produce the four channels "better" than what older Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic encoders could with the same.
    For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
    Quote Quote  
  19. I assume the OP was referring to taking multichannel audio and downmixing it to stereo/Prologic. I can't speak for all conversion programs but MeGUI does have options to "upmix" stereo audio to 5.1ch using SOX, but I assume it "upmixes" to discreet 5.1ch and not Prologic.

    Anyway I was a little curious to see how MeGUI downmixes 5.1ch to Prologic II so I ran a quick encode. It uses AVISynth for the work so I copied what I assume is the relevant part of the script:

    # 5.1 Channels L,R,C,LFE,SL,SR -> Dolby ProLogic II
    function c6_dpl2(clip a)
    {
    fl = GetChannel(a, 1)
    fr = GetChannel(a, 2)
    fc = GetChannel(a, 3)
    sl = GetChannel(a, 5)
    sr = GetChannel(a, 6)
    ssl = MixAudio(sl, sr, 0.2818, 0.1627)
    ssr = MixAudio(sl, sr, -0.1627, -0.2818)
    fl_fc = MixAudio(fl, fc, 0.3254, 0.2301)
    fr_fc = MixAudio(fr, fc, 0.3254, 0.2301)
    l = MixAudio(fl_fc, ssl, 1.0, 1.0)
    r = MixAudio(fr_fc, ssr, 1.0, 1.0)
    return MergeChannels(l, r)


    Originally Posted by turk690 View Post
    There is no such thing as Dolby Pro Logic or Dolby Pro Logic II encoding. They are decoding circuits, that rely on certain frequency, phase, and timing cues in the decoder to steer appropriate content to the created rear and center front channels. These decoders have processor-driven logic to create a convincing 4 channels out of 2 original ones on the DVD, CD, VHS tape, etc. Note that, in math you can't solve for 4 unknowns out of merely 2 variables, but as far, as Dolby Pro Logic is concerned, with enough cues, convincing matrixes can be made out of the two channels.
    While I don't fully understand the above script yet (I get the basics of it but I'll need to research a little to understand it fully), assuming the above is the correct way to downmix 5.1ch to Prologic II, can it then be properly decoded to separate channels again?
    I understand the gist of what you're saying regarding decoding circuits relying on certain frequency, phase, and timing cues to decode the audio properly, but are those things only ever found in genuine Dolby-created Prologic audio?... As opposed to a Prologic II downmix such as the one above. Could the above downmix ever be decoded "properly" by a Prologic II decoder? I assume from what you're saying the answer is no, but I'd like to understand the process a little better.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    # 5.1 Channels L,R,C,LFE,SL,SR -> Dolby ProLogic II
    function c6_dpl2(clip a)
    {
    fl = GetChannel(a, 1)
    fr = GetChannel(a, 2)
    fc = GetChannel(a, 3)
    sl = GetChannel(a, 5)
    sr = GetChannel(a, 6)
    ssl = MixAudio(sl, sr, 0.2818, 0.1627)
    ssr = MixAudio(sl, sr, -0.1627, -0.2818)
    fl_fc = MixAudio(fl, fc, 0.3254, 0.2301)
    fr_fc = MixAudio(fr, fc, 0.3254, 0.2301)
    l = MixAudio(fl_fc, ssl, 1.0, 1.0)
    r = MixAudio(fr_fc, ssr, 1.0, 1.0)
    return MergeChannels(l, r)

    Could the above downmix ever be decoded "properly" by a Prologic II decoder?
    Yes it could. If there is sound only on the left channel it will be routed to the left speaker. If there is sound only on the right channel it will be routed to the right speaker. If the sound is in phase and equal volume on the left and right channels it will be routed to the center speaker. If the sound is out of phase and equal volume it will be routed to the rear speaker(s). See the attached file. Note the voice says "rear left" and "rear right" but the two were mixed down to a single rear channel before encoding.

    The problem is you can't have four full bandwidth channels encoded simultaneously. For example, you can't have four different mono songs playing simultaneously and have each come out of only one speaker.
    Image Attached Files
    Last edited by jagabo; 9th Aug 2013 at 08:30.
    Quote Quote  
  21. I'm not sure if it's ffdshow's Prologic decoder or my convoluted method for converting your above file to discreet multichannel audio, but anyway.....

    I can't seem to decode a wave file using ffdshow no matter how much I beg, and even if I convert it to flac first, getting MeGUI to use DirectShow to decode it doesn't seem to want to happen. For the moment I've converted it to flac, stuck it in an mka and then used a DirectShow script to convert it to multichannel wave with ffdshow decoding.... that at least works. The audio is clear but there's a lot of bleed.....

    Here's what the front stereo and centre channels looked like after I decoded that to a multichannel wave file with ffdshow's Prologic decoder (the other channels were there, just not in the screenshot). If you recall the order (FL, C, FR, RL, RR), you'll see the front left and right channels are still well separated, but centre bled into left and right and a lot of rear left and right ended up in the front channels too.
    Likewise there was ample front left and right in the rear channels, although the centre channel kept out of the rear.

    Is that sort of thing as good as it gets?

    I'll try to work on a better way to decode/re-encode or maybe ffdshow's Prologic decoder isn't terribly good......

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Clipboard01.gif
Views:	795
Size:	99.5 KB
ID:	19273
    Quote Quote  
  22. It worked as expected on my audio receiver (four discreet channels) with the receiver set to Pro Logic mode.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member turk690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    Here's what the front stereo and centre channels looked like after I decoded that to a multichannel wave file with ffdshow's Prologic decoder (the other channels were there, just not in the screenshot). If you recall the order (FL, C, FR, RL, RR), you'll see the front left and right channels are still well separated, but centre bled into left and right and a lot of rear left and right ended up in the front channels too.
    Likewise there was ample front left and right in the rear channels, although the centre channel kept out of the rear.
    I would expect as much. Dolby Pro Logic is a decoding scheme, not encoding. The waveforms may appear a bit too mixed up as such; not impressive. But what we can't see is DPL/II's on-the-fly treatment of those decoded pseudo-channels when its Logic circuitry increase and decrease their relative levels to heighten perceived channel separation. For example, when parts of a signal appears in equal amounts in phase on Lf and Rf (mono content), and there is little non-common (stereo?) information in each of Lf and Rf, the mono part gets routed to center, and its level is simultaneously increased, while both Lf and Rf channel levels attenuated at the same time. By how much (and how fast or slow) the information is routed to each channel depends on that particular DPL/II decoder; in its heyday, different decoders were rated more or less depending on how much perceived channel separation it could achieve (and how smoothly and realistic) through that muck of a matrixing encoding scheme that is Dolby Surround, which is the standard for that encoding that Dolby ever has to prescribe.
    I suppose, it would make more sense to monitor waveforms as the soundtrack plays and record them at the output of a DPL/II decoder to quantify what is going on. Like, resolving for mono content (speech, for example) will still make it appear equally on both Lf and Rf through an analogue Dolby Surround, but for a noteworthy Dolby Pro Logic/II design, I expect Lf and Rf to be greatly attenuated (>-10dB), and center channel boosted (>3dB).
    I have little idea what handbrake and ffdshow's take on all this is.
    For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
    Quote Quote  
  24. I'm a Super Moderator johns0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    canada
    Search Comp PM
    Dolby pro logic are matrix encoded and then decoded,that's like saying dts aren't encoded but decoding schemes,how are dolby pro logic created in the first place?
    I think,therefore i am a hamster.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    It worked as expected on my audio receiver (four discreet channels) with the receiver set to Pro Logic mode.

    I'll play around again sometime in the next day or so.... although unless ffdshow's Prologic decoder does what it's supposed to do there's probably not much point in my messing around as that's the only way I can decode it..... Proloically.
    The sample you uploaded jagabo..... That's supposed to be decoded using Prologic II and not Prologic? You said the rear channels are mono so maybe I can't decode it properly.

    I've re-encoded countless multichannel audio streams as Prologic in the past.... that's what AutoGK does when it converts to MP3 and it doesn't let you disable Prologic (probably no point). I've never decoded one of those encodes using Prologic though so I'm still curious regarding the encoding process. Does encoding with a lossy encoder (ie MP3) mess with Prologic much?

    Anyway.... does anyone have any experience using ffdshow's Prologic II decoder.... ie does it work correctly? I'm not sure trying to find a more direct way to decode/re-encode the sample wouldn't be a waste of time until I know.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello
    I'm not sure trying to find a more direct way to decode/re-encode the sample wouldn't be a waste of time until I know.
    I guess I'm not sure what the ultimate goal of this would be. Is it for saving as much space as possible while maintaining a respectable approximation of discrete surround sound?

    if its just a curiosity than go for it.

    However it might be more worth it in the long run to get a surround amp that can decode aac 5.1 properly. That should be the maximum savings you could get over ac3 and maintain discrete 5.1 surround.

    ---------------------------

    Fyi if you have a tablet with hdmi out that can run xbmc you already have a way to properly play aac 5.1. I can do that on my ouya console that runs android and xbmc. It reads as ac3 with full surround sound (ie the blue light is on on my sony amp and its more than ten years old and is sd only with no hdmi in).

    And fyi I run the hdmi from the ouya to my hdmi in on my hdtv and the optic out to my receiver from the hdtv and I get full surround sound. My hdtv actually passes the surround sound through to the amp.
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    The sample you uploaded jagabo..... That's supposed to be decoded using Prologic II and not Prologic?
    Either will work. But you'll only get one rear channel.

    I was able to get ffdshow to split the file into six channels using the Dolby Decoder (PL II). The isolation wasn't as good as my old A/V receiver though.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	waves.png
Views:	968
Size:	23.7 KB
ID:	19287
    Last edited by jagabo; 10th Aug 2013 at 09:57.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    if its just a curiosity than go for it.
    I only have stereo speakers myself so yeah it's just a curiosity thing..... trying to discover what changes or is lost etc along the way when discreet 5.1ch audio is downmixed to Prologic and then decoded that way.

    A curiosity thing definitely, as I don't like surround sound. I'd offer my spiel on how I find surround sound annoying but my spiel occasionally has the same effect on posters that surround sound does on me.

    Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    However it might be more worth it in the long run to get a surround amp that can decode aac 5.1 properly. That should be the maximum savings you could get over ac3 and maintain discrete 5.1 surround.
    Maybe one day if they can decode all the 5.1ch audio I've converted to multichannel AAC and it's easy to switch to stereo mode if I'm in the room.

    Originally Posted by yoda313 View Post
    Fyi if you have a tablet with hdmi out that can run xbmc you already have a way to properly play aac 5.1. I can do that on my ouya console that runs android and xbmc. It reads as ac3 with full surround sound (ie the blue light is on on my sony amp and its more than ten years old and is sd only with no hdmi in)
    I assume it converts the audio to AC3 on the fly? I'm pretty sure the ffdshow audio decoder can do the same. Not that I've tried it myself.... only having 2 speakers and an inability to understand why the majority of the world thinks surround sound is such a wonderful thing.

    People are strange creatures..... half of them will swear black and blue every MP3 audio file ever encoded sounds like crap while the a similar number will surround themselves with speakers and swear black and blue it sounds better.

    But that's just me of course.... each to their own.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    I was able to get ffdshow to split the file into six channels using the Dolby Decoder (PL II). The isolation wasn't as good as my old A/V receiver though.
    At least I know my result was okay, given we both got the same one. I wonder why ffdshow doesn't decode Prologic with the same separation as a Prologic receiver would/should.
    Not to mention the time I tried a similar test using surround sound which contained music in the rear channels. I thought it sounded terrible after decoding, but maybe that was ffdshow's fault.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member turk690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by johns0 View Post
    Dolby pro logic are matrix encoded and then decoded,that's like saying dts aren't encoded but decoding schemes,how are dolby pro logic created in the first place?
    Analogue domain matrixing encoding: Dolby Surround (only one spec of its kind there, 4 channels to 2)
    Analogue domain matrixing decoding: Dolby Surround
    Analogue domain matrixing decoding with steering and individual channel level control through h/w logic (proprietary circuitry depending on manufacturer, with, if at its most basic can decode Dolby Surround as is, then permitted to use logo): Dolby Pro Logic
    Analogue domain matrixing decoding with steering and individual channel level control through h/w logic with different emphasis on center and rear for reproducing conventional non-Dolby Surround encoded stereo music tracks: Dolby Pro Logic II


    Digital
    domain discrete (non-matrixed) 5-channel compressed lossy encoding & decoding: Dolby Digital & dts
    Digital domain discrete 5-channel (or more) lossless encoding & decoding for HD versions of above: Dolby TrueHD & dts-HD Master Audio
    For the nth time, with the possible exception of certain Intel processors, I don't have/ever owned anything whose name starts with "i".
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads