Can someone recommend stable demux-mux software?

[Djard]

I often find the dynamic range of movies on BR annoying: the soft parts are sometimes almost inaudible, and the loud parts jolting if I crank up the volume. So I try to demux and normalize the audio, using Audacity. Then I remux. The problem is that all of the tools I have used to date too often fall short in some way, the biggest problem is pixilization and other unacceptable artifact.

I'm hoping someone who has experience using a particular program can recommend it for demuxing amd muxing files.

I was thrilled AVIDemux v2.6 offered lossless muxing (copy mode), but for me the app renders video with sections so pixilated that I had to abandon its use. The source video always played fine.

Can anyone recommend an app for demuxing and muxing that is stable...any open source project or freeware?

[Kerry56]

tsMuxeR

[Djard]

Thanks for the response. The link is dead, and VideoHelp's search feature hangs. Maybe they're doing maintenance. I'll try later.

[Cornucopia]

I find it much easier to just use a receiver/amp which has the feature to narrow or widen the dynamic range. Often this is called "night mode" (when narrowed).

BTW, I don't know WHAT you are using to demux & remux, but a simple change in an audio stream would NEVER affect the unchanged original video. Pixellated?? Sounds to me you are doing something wrong (less the fault of the app than in the choice of app or the settings used). This is not meant to insult: it just shouldn't be happening.

Scott

BTW, link & search feature work for me.

[johns0]

The link isn't dead,most likely your server/brower issue,just leave the audio alone and get a better audio system for hearing,i never get the audio issues you are hearing after updating to a decent 5.1 audio system.

[Djard]

I managed to download tsMuxeR from another site, similar to this, where I had no difficulty using the links. But if other folks don't get a blank page when clicking on a link at this site, evidently my browser is not up to snuff.

I'll definitely look at investing in a surround sound system that has the "night mode" feature. It's difficult for me to appreciate why the volume on so many BluRay discs is recorded soooooo weak. There's no need to allow such an absurd amount of head room to avoid distortion: there's non discernable at a level of 0dB. The need to boot weak volume magnifies any inherent noise, even with powerful equipment that has a high S/N ratio.

The average volume of audio on many BluRay movie discs is much lower than on regular DVDs. Demux and import the audio into an app like Audacity and look at the average volume in the waveform. Remember, you will look at the average volume. BR mfrs must assume we all have 10,000 att RMS sound systems at home. After I normalize a BR audio, I don't need to crank up my amp when watching the movie on TV. The sound is clean and still has plenty of dynamic range.

Regarding the pixilization, I just discovered that it only happens when I preview a mux using VideoLAN. MPC and WMP play the videos fine. I solved that problem by dumping VideoLAN.

[Baldrick]

Do you get a blank page clicking on https://www.videohelp.com/download/tsMuxeR_2.1.3(b).zip ?

[Cornucopia]

It isn't that your BD and DVD recordings are so quiet, it's that your other files are TOO LOUD.

This may not make much sense to you if you haven't done lots of audio engineering, but there can a big difference between PEAK and AVERAGE recording levels.
With modern digital equipment, the dynamic range of digital recordings can be over 100dB (though this is rare when you add up all the elements in the chain). What this means is that one has the ability to maintain clean signal throughout its dynamic range, EVEN if some of that range is compromised.
Recording engineers know that for many kinds of audio material, the difference between PEAK and AVERAGE can be anywhere from ~12dB (e.g. many news material & commercials) to ~30dB (e.g. many classical/symphonic works). If you make EVERYTHING normalized to their PEAK levels, what you end up with is what I would refer to as the "Ratliff Effect" (in reference to "Eyebeam"'s character friend Ratliff, whose job was to raise the volume on commercial breaks). This has become such a problem that congress has instituted the CALM bill, which forces broadcasters to redo their audio levels to (hopefully) ease this variation.
Well, what happens when you record like the pro engineers do, and go for a standard LESS-THAN-ZERO level for their average, with hopefully enough headroom (for example 20dB) to maintain unclipped peaks? You get a slightly different kind of variation, one that varies depending on the "density" of the signal, and what you have just witnessed: a signal which doesn't always reach the 0dBFS mark. This also means that it purposefully doesn't make use of the full dynamic range. This may suck for people who like things constantly loud, but for most of us, it's a better way of setting things up than the "normalize to 0" free-for-all method. But since the dynamic range is SO BIG, you can afford to lose a little of it. Heck, it's still way better than old analog LPs & FM (which usually topped out at ~60dB).
Dolby has institutionalized this format in their AC-3 format by including what's known as "DialNorm" (Dialog Normalizing) which seeks to maintain a consistent average dialog level, at the cost of reduction in overall theoretical dynamic range. Yes, it may raise up the noise floor by 10-20dB, but if you are already starting with say 112, you are still at 92dB at worst and that would only be for material that had small peak to average.

BTW, 10000Watts is quite ridiculous - a 300-600W per channel amp would blow most rooms away.

I'm just suggesting that you become aware of the trends and accept that those pro media are going to be lower than what you've previously come to accept as normal. Instead, assume that pros actually know what they're doing and accept that THAT is normal and adjust accordingly. It's just going to continue in this trend...

Scott

[Djard]

Yes, I do get a blank page when I click on https://www.videohelp.com/download/tsMuxeR_2.1.3(b).zip My browser doesn't seem to function properly here. So far I haven't experienced any problems clicking on URLs at other sites. So far.

Oops! I meant dynamic range compression when referring to normalization. Sorry, I got confused.

Thanks for the interesting info about recording levesl. For a number of years I was a concert guitarist and recorded in the finest studios in the world, at EMI in London and at RCA in Nashville. The chief engineer, Bill Vandervolt, like the others, always recorded "hot." But I too am offended by the insult of commercials barking at you many time the volume of the movie on TV. And I know that even a 10 watt (RMS) amp can blow out your ear drums.

I have a Plextor DVD player and my Cambridge surround sound system has 90% in reserve when playing regular movies. But most--not all--of those backed up from BR require that I crank up the volume dangerously high. I can't persuade myself to think that some of the pros are often too conservative with head room. I use Finale 2012, a $600 piece of binary marve;, yet it comes with Aria Player, a feature-rich piece of software that chokes audio like a sociopath becasue it's designed for orchestra. > 50% head room is nuts! The engineers are anal.

tsMuxeR works flawlessly for me. Yay! When demuxing a matroska video, I ended up with a file that has a .264 file extension; but I can live with that setback as I only want to correct the audio, and tsMuxeR remuxes the .264 file nicely (I chose .M2TS). Neither MPC, WMP, VLN or any other program I have can open it, unless I rename the file extension to .MKV or MP4. Then I can play it. I say setback because "Open with" does not appear in the shell context menu when right-clicking on a file with the .264 extension.

Now I'm wondering how tsMuxeR managed to save the video part without recoding it, for the process took less than 30 seconds; and the movie is 130 mins long. Yet the file was modified; for if I rename the file extension back to MKV, tsMuxeR will reject it. It must remain .264 until I remux.

I apologize for the lengthy post. Can anyone explain how the demuxed file is changed to .264 by tsMuxeR without recoding?

[Baldrick]

A demultiplexer just splits the video from the container. No recoding so it's very fast.

And if you choose m2ts in tsmuxer you should get a .m2ts file. Or do you get a .264 file?

[Djard]

I'm hungry to learn, so I'll reconstruct my question as I don't think I was clear. I understand that tsMuxeR splits the files without recoding, but the video file is changed in some way and given a new file extension.

1. tsMuxeR splits a file named "Movie.mkv" and renders two files, "Movie.track_1.264" and "Movie.track_2.aac."
2. None of my media players will play "Movie.track_1.264," even though H.264 codec is installed.
3. I rename "Movie.track_1.264" as "Movie.track_1.mkv"
4. Now all my media players audit/play the silent file OK (the .mp4 extension works also).
5. I use Audacity's Dynamic Range Compressor to boost the sections with very weak volume as well as the average volume without altering the peak volume. I then remove the absurd excessive head room with the Normalization tool.
6. Next, I rename the file back as "Movie.track_1.264"; otherwise tsMuxeR will not support the file for muxing.
7. After muxing, I get a file named: "Movie .m2ts" that plays fine.
8. I use ConvertXtoDVD to create the IFO, BUP, VOB compilation and burn to a DVD disc.
9. I watch the movie on TV without straining to hear the almost inaudible parts or having to suffer the loud parts blasting my ears. And I still enjoy plenty of dynamic range. Nice. I prefer hot volume audio as its easier to turn down the volume than to crank up weak volume, which also multiplies any inherent or background noise. It's only sane.

So the .mkv file gets changed to .264 in the demux process then to m2ts in the muxing, without any loss of quality. I'm just wondering how the file is changed, apart from its file extension altered. And it is changed becasue of step 6 above. Just curious.

[johns0]

The video doesn't change,just the audio.

[lordsmurf]

Do you get a blank page clicking on

No.
Not blank. Downloads.

Latest Firefox, Win7 Home.

[Steve(MS)]

I'm hungry to learn, so I'll reconstruct my question as I don't think I was clear. I understand that tsMuxeR splits the files without recoding, but the video file is changed in some way and given a new file extension.

1. tsMuxeR splits a file named "Movie.mkv" and renders two files, "Movie.track_1.264" and "Movie.track_2.aac."
2. None of my media players will play "Movie.track_1.264," even though H.264 codec is installed.
3. I rename "Movie.track_1.264" as "Movie.track_1.mkv"
4. Now all my media players audit/play the silent file OK (the .mp4 extension works also).
5. I use Audacity's Dynamic Range Compressor to boost the sections with very weak volume as well as the average volume without altering the peak volume. I then remove the absurd excessive head room with the Normalization tool.
6. Next, I rename the file back as "Movie.track_1.264"; otherwise tsMuxeR will not support the file for muxing.
7. After muxing, I get a file named: "Movie .m2ts" that plays fine.
8. I use ConvertXtoDVD to create the IFO, BUP, VOB compilation and burn to a DVD disc.
9. I watch the movie on TV without straining to hear the almost inaudible parts or having to suffer the loud parts blasting my ears. And I still enjoy plenty of dynamic range. Nice. I prefer hot volume audio as its easier to turn down the volume than to crank up weak volume, which also multiplies any inherent or background noise. It's only sane.

So the .mkv file gets changed to .264 in the demux process then to m2ts in the muxing, without any loss of quality. I'm just wondering how the file is changed, apart from its file extension altered. And it is changed becasue of step 6 above. Just curious.

To answer your question, when you demux with tsmuxer, it gives you the audio file..like .aac for the audio and an .h264 for the video.