Hi
I'm trying to burn a 5.1 album which I downloaded from the net, onto a DVD disc. I'm using dbpoweramp to convert the audio files to a format that I can then drag into LPLEX (24 bit, 6 channel and 48KHz) and from there create an ISO file for burning. After using dbpoweramp the files are still perfect, but when LPLEX creates the ISO file, some audio from some of the channels get dropped. LPLEX doesnt seem to be able to accept files with 24 bit and 6 channel and 96Khz, and I'm not even sure the limitation of 48Khz is the issue.
Can anyone suggest any software that can create an ISO file like LPLEX does, but that won't cause this loss of subtle audio parts.
I've searched high and low but can't find a solution anywhere.
Thanks
(24 bit, 6 channel and 48KHz)
If I've done my math right, that adds up to 6912 kbps, which is too high: video DVDs are limited to 6144 kbps.
...so try with 16 bits instead of 24.
...so try with 16 bits instead of 24.
Thanks. Regardless of the bit rate I use though, lplex wont let me keep it at 6 channels AND at 96Khz at the same time. Beginning to think that, as Octocontrabass suggested, it may not be possible to get this to work on a DVD disc and keep all the 6 channel audio information intact. If there was software that keep all three elements (6 channel, 24 bit and 96Khz) intact when converting to the .iso image file, that should work, but as I mentioned I haven't been able to find one so far........
96 kHz 6 channels is not allowed in DVD video at all. This is not lplex limitation.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180323175710/http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/DVD/Book_B/Audio.html
If you want 6 channels, you are limited to 16 bits, 48 kHz.
96 kHz 6 channels is not allowed in DVD video at all.
okay - thanks for confirming that. So, given that both of these elements are not possible on DVD, would burning to blu ray potentially solve the issue? The original files downloaded are in 24 bit, 6 channel and 88.2Khz. So if these elements could maintained and converted to a disc image file suitable for burning for blu ray, that should work in theory right? If that's the case would you know of any software that can convert to a disc image to burn and eventually play on a standalone blu ray player? Thanks for your help so far - much appreciated.
It seem that 88.2 kHz is not allowed on blu ray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Audio.
As for software - https://www.videohelp.com/software/sections/authoring-bd-hd-dvd
It seem that 88.2 kHz is not allowed on blu ray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Audio.
As for software - https://www.videohelp.com/software/sections/authoring-bd-hd-dvd
thanks - so I've downloaded multiAVCHD as it has an audio-only facility for burning to BD. However, when loading my 96Khz/24 bit/6 channel audio files I keep getting the message about track duration not being detected due to no cue sheet being present. I don't really want to start having to create cue sheets as I once I get this sorted, I'll have many discs to burn. Even when I manually enter the duration, I get a message re no compatible files processed which I can't understand - I'll try and attach the log here, but is there anyone out there that wold know a solution to this? thanks
The original files downloaded are in 24 bit, 6 channel and 88.2Khz. So if these elements could maintained
Do they need to be maintained? Why do you want such high sample rates and bit depths? What's wrong with 16 bit, 48 kHz?
The original files downloaded are in 24 bit, 6 channel and 88.2Khz. So if these elements could maintained
Do they need to be maintained? Why do you want such high sample rates and bit depths? What's wrong with 16 bit, 48 kHz?
16 bit at 48Khz does sound great, but for tracks recorded as 5.1 there are a number of aspects of the 5.1 mix that just can't heard with 16bit/48Khz..example is the album Black Celebration by Depeche Mode. Numerous tracks on the 5.1 version of that album have audio elements that can only be heard at 24 bit and 96Khz. I'm surprised that a straightforward program for creating an audio only blu ray disc doesn't seem easy to come by.
If so (ahem, Terms of Service item 8 ...) then what says it is due to the audio format and not to the mix?
If you pi-rated the album, why care that you get precisely the mix in the stream format when you burn it to something else?
If so (ahem, Terms of Service item 8 ...) then what says it is due to the audio format and not to the mix?
If you pi-rated the album, why care that you get precisely the mix in the stream format when you burn it to something else?
The main reason for this project, is so that I can combine the 5.1 album (of which I own an actual physical copy of the SACD anyway), with ALL the associated remixes, b-sides, demos and live tracks for that album, not just the menial few that were included in the SACD package itself. The end result would be a complete ultimate edition of the album on one disc, including the 5.1 mix in all its glory.
16 bit at 48Khz does sound great, but for tracks recorded as 5.1 there are a number of aspects of the 5.1 mix that just can't heard with 16bit/48Khz..
Like what? A lot of people have claimed to be able to hear such differences, but so far, no one has been able to do it in a fair comparison. Is it possible that you're not doing a fair comparison?
16 bit at 48Khz does sound great, but for tracks recorded as 5.1 there are a number of aspects of the 5.1 mix that just can't heard with 16bit/48Khz..
Like what? A lot of people have claimed to be able to hear such differences, but so far, no one has been able to do it in a fair comparison. Is it possible that you're not doing a fair comparison?
Three examples for the album I mentioned above:
On the track - Fly on the windscreen there is a sample used at the start where someone says 'over and done with - over and done with' (i.e. twice) and this is clearly heard in the normal stereo version. But on the 5.1 version you will only hear it once unless it's at 96Khz. On the same track about two seconds later there is squirting sound/sample just before the main synths start, and then repeats a few times shortly later. Unless it's 96khz you won't hear the first squirt on the 5.1 mix, only the ones after the synths start.
Similarly, on the track a Question of Lust, Martin Gores backing vocals in the middle of the track when he sings 'we realise', 'do you know what I mean' & 'it frightens me' can only be heard in the 5.1 mix if it's 24 bit, but the Khz only needs to be 48Khz. This has been my experience of testing and listening back, and has brought me to the conclusion that the 5.1 can only be fully appreciated if its at 24 bit, 96Khz. The search for an easy to use audio-only BD authoring software (i.e. the equivalent of what LPLEX does for DVD) continues......
On the track - Fly on the windscreen there is a sample used at the start where someone says 'over and done with - over and done with' (i.e. twice) and this is clearly heard in the normal stereo version. But on the 5.1 version you will only hear it once unless it's at 96Khz. On the same track about two seconds later there is squirting sound/sample just before the main synths start, and then repeats a few times shortly later. Unless it's 96khz you won't hear the first squirt on the 5.1 mix, only the ones after the synths start.
Similarly, on the track a Question of Lust, Martin Gores backing vocals in the middle of the track when he sings 'we realise', 'do you know what I mean' & 'it frightens me' can only be heard in the 5.1 mix if it's 24 bit, but the Khz only needs to be 48Khz. This has been my experience of testing and listening back, and has brought me to the conclusion that the 5.1 can only be fully appreciated if its at 24 bit, 96Khz
It seems like something gone wrong with your conversion to lower bitdepth and samplerate.
It is allowed to share fragments up to 30 seconds here on hydrogenaud.io. Can you please cut problematic moments from original 24/96 files, upload them somewhere and give links?
Like what? A lot of people have claimed to be able to hear such differences, but so far, no one has been able to do it in a fair comparison. Is it possible that you're not doing a fair comparison?
A LOT of people claim to hear differences or THINK they hear differences that magically go-away in a proper
Blind ABX Test (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,16295.0.html). ;)
Or... Sometimes when I'm editing or fixing-up a recording there are little defects/details that I can or can't hear randomly when played repeatedly... It's weird!
Audio can go up-to half the sample rate (24kHz at a 48kHz sample rate). It's slight less because of "imperfect filtering" but it still goes to 20kHz.
And even if you can hear to 20kHz in a hearing test, the highest frequencies in real music are weak and masked (drowned out) by other high frequencies. We normally want our sound system to cover the full-audio range but as a practical matter it's usually not required... and many of us are older and we can't hear to 20kHz.
The bit depth limits how quiet you can go. 16-bits can go down to -96dB and that's VERY QUIET. Anything lower gets "rounded down" to zero (silence). 24-bits goes down to -144dB. (There is still analog noise.) You might want to play-around with Audacity and attenuate by -60 or -70dB, etc., to get a feel for that... No fair cranking-up the volume when playing back... It's better if you leave some normal-volume sound at the beginning and then suddenly drop-down to get a good relative level. (Audacity can only attenuate by 50dB at a time, and you have to do it in two steps.)
The Shout-O-Meter (https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,16295.0.html) also gives perspective.
It is quite uncontroversial to claim that different mixes can sound different. (Which isn't the same as to say that when you think you hear differences there are differences, because even when you are convinced the mixes are different, you can surely be fooled the same way as when you know the formats are different.)
Also, I am so damn sure that 192/24 is not enough ... yesterday I produced a proof of concept without even attempting it.
You wanna see the ABX log you say?
Did you notice I wrote "192" and not "192000"? Neither did I, when I did it! Backstory: Since TAK doesn't handle 384 kHz, I tried to make an 192 kHz file to see how TAK would compress it compared to others. Only to find that TAK still refused. Only because it doesn't handle 192 Hz either. (Other codecs do ...!)
My point being: clumsy people like myself should only do lossy compression/conversion for the purpose of creating disposable files. Not for throwing away the source.
If some hi-rez file sounds better because it is mixed different, then I'd say, don't downmix it to save space, unless you are willing to take the risk you might destroy something. Which is likely even without typos, if you don't know precisely what various software might do. 32 bits is overkill you say? Still do not ffmpeg -i 32bitfile.wav outfile.wav, it will clip if the 32bitfile is float exceeding 0dB.
Most DVD players will play FLAC files.
Most DVD players will play FLAC files.
While not wishing to seem pedantic, claiming "most" (ie more than 50%) is hard to justify without specific data.
On the track - Fly on the windscreen there is a sample used at the start where someone says 'over and done with - over and done with' (i.e. twice) and this is clearly heard in the normal stereo version. But on the 5.1 version you will only hear it once unless it's at 96Khz. On the same track about two seconds later there is squirting sound/sample just before the main synths start, and then repeats a few times shortly later. Unless it's 96khz you won't hear the first squirt on the 5.1 mix, only the ones after the synths start.
Similarly, on the track a Question of Lust, Martin Gores backing vocals in the middle of the track when he sings 'we realise', 'do you know what I mean' & 'it frightens me' can only be heard in the 5.1 mix if it's 24 bit, but the Khz only needs to be 48Khz. This has been my experience of testing and listening back, and has brought me to the conclusion that the 5.1 can only be fully appreciated if its at 24 bit, 96Khz
It seems like something gone wrong with your conversion to lower bitdepth and samplerate.
It is allowed to share fragments up to 30 seconds here on hydrogenaud.io. Can you please cut problematic moments from original 24/96 files, upload them somewhere and give links?
Yes. it is definitely due to having to reduce the bitrate to 48Khz, but I had only been converting down to 48kHZ in order to satisfy the restrictions within LPLEX for 6 channel music. It was only when I played back the .iso file that LPLEX created for burning, that I realised the missing audio segments that I mentioned in my last post, even though those missing segments were present in the files I imported to LPLEX. The differences are not subjective. I'm no audio expert but there are clear missing pieces as if those pieces were placed in the 5.1 mix in such a way that only above 48Khz can capture.
It was only when I played back the .iso file that LPLEX created for burning, that I realised the missing audio segments that I mentioned in my last post, even though those missing segments were present in the files I imported to LPLEX.
So, at which step do you hear the difference? Listening to the converted audio before importing to LPLEX, or only when listening to the ISO?
The problems you've described are consistent with incorrect channel mapping or channel up/downmixing, not sample rate conversion or bit depth reduction. If you can hear the problem in the converted audio before you create the ISO, the software you're using for sample rate conversion may be incorrectly configured or broken. If you only hear the problem in the ISO, there may be a problem with how LPLEX interprets your input files, or your DVD playback software may be incorrectly configured or broken.
It's also possible that you're imagining it. Since you know which one you're listening to, you may be experiencing confirmation bias. After all, so many other people claim to hear a difference, so you should be able to hear a difference too, right?
It was only when I played back the .iso file that LPLEX created for burning, that I realised the missing audio segments that I mentioned in my last post, even though those missing segments were present in the files I imported to LPLEX.
So, at which step do you hear the difference? Listening to the converted audio before importing to LPLEX, or only when listening to the ISO?
The problems you've described are consistent with incorrect channel mapping or channel up/downmixing, not sample rate conversion or bit depth reduction. If you can hear the problem in the converted audio before you create the ISO, the software you're using for sample rate conversion may be incorrectly configured or broken. If you only hear the problem in the ISO, there may be a problem with how LPLEX interprets your input files, or your DVD playback software may be incorrectly configured or broken.
It's also possible that you're imagining it. Since you know which one you're listening to, you may be experiencing confirmation bias. After all, so many other people claim to hear a difference, so you should be able to hear a difference too, right?
Having done further tests, the issues arise only when the iso file is created by LPLEX. The files imported to LPLEX are mostly perfectly fine, but LPLEX is definitely doing something. When playing back the iso file on my PC, even before burning to disc, the issues are apparent. It's a pity, because LPLEX has otherwise been a fantastic application.....
When playing back the iso file on my PC, even before burning to disc, the issues are apparent.
Are you sure the problem is with Lplex and not the player? Which player software are you using?
Can you trim your audio down to a section (less than 30 seconds long) that demonstrates the problem and share both the input audio and the resulting ISO? If the problem is Lplex, we'll be able to see what's wrong and maybe even help you fix it.
When playing back the iso file on my PC, even before burning to disc, the issues are apparent.
Are you sure the problem is with Lplex and not the player? Which player software are you using?
Can you trim your audio down to a section (less than 30 seconds long) that demonstrates the problem and share both the input audio and the resulting ISO? If the problem is Lplex, we'll be able to see what's wrong and maybe even help you fix it.
I'll certainly try - can you recommend any trimmer software to use? where would be the best option to upload it to? thanks.
When playing back the iso file on my PC, even before burning to disc, the issues are apparent.
Are you sure the problem is with Lplex and not the player? Which player software are you using?
Can you trim your audio down to a section (less than 30 seconds long) that demonstrates the problem and share both the input audio and the resulting ISO? If the problem is Lplex, we'll be able to see what's wrong and maybe even help you fix it.
I'll certainly try - can you recommend any trimmer software to use? where would be the best option to upload it to? thanks.
by the way I've used a few different players - potplayer for the input audio and vlc with 5.1 settings for the iso, as potplayer doesnt play .iso's
I'll certainly try - can you recommend any trimmer software to use? where would be the best option to upload it to? thanks.
It's been a long time since I've done anything more than basic transcoding of 5.1 audio, so I'm afraid I don't remember any of the tools I tried or which one I liked! But, the tool you're using for resampling might also include a trimming function.
by the way I've used a few different players - potplayer for the input audio and vlc with 5.1 settings for the iso, as potplayer doesnt play .iso's
What happens if you play the input audio using VLC?
If you want 5.1 DVD you are stuck with lossy AC3 at 448 kbit/s.
I heard it was possible to use full 640 kbit/s by some "hacking" but compatibility is not guaranteed.
If you want uncompressed 5.1 audio you will need to use Blu-ray.
Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are optional, so you will have to use LCPM.
Last but not least, you will need receiver that supports lossless LPCM over HDMI.
Older receivers will only have optical (Toslink) and RCA (S/PDIF) inputs so you will be stuck with AC3.
Or you can use Blu-ray player with dedicated RCA outputs to feed receiver with analog sound.
To be honest, I would just say fuck it... Use USB flash drive or simply burn data CD/DVD.
If you are running low on space you can use FLAC and/or convert everything into 16/44 or 24/48...
If you want 5.1 DVD you are stuck with lossy AC3 at 448 kbit/s.
Where did you hear that? DVD supports 5.1 PCM just fine, as long as you choose a bit depth and sample rate to stay within 6144 kbps. For example, 16 bits and 48 kHz adds up to 4608 kbps. Hardly anyone does this because it limits the video bitrate: with 4608 kbps audio, your video would be limited to about 5400 kbps, which is too low for much beyond still images.
Where did you hear that? DVD supports 5.1 PCM just fine.
Nice. Now check the back panel of most DVD players. You will see single optical and/or RCA connector. (Not counting 2 stereo RCAs)
Goodbye LPCM, hello AC3 my old reliable friend.
My DVD player is a Blu-ray player. It has HDMI.
the 5.1 album (of which I own an actual physical copy of the SACD anyway)
SACD. That's DSD. If you can rip them, then that is an audio format you cannot put on a DVD. Of course you can put them as files on a (data-) DVD-R, but I think only a very few all standalone players handle that.
Meaning, you have to process the audio anyway?