Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: I would be happy to ask you... (Read 4303 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I would be happy to ask you...

Damn...
I feel myself so    !!!

I want to produce 5.1 audio and I ask myself which codec to choose :

Dolby AC-3 (Encoder version 7) or WMA 9  5.1

To be honest I'm impressed by MS codec (for multichannels purpose only !!  )  but in the other hand AC-3 (Vegas 4 expensive plug-in) is a standard...


Thank you very much for all !!

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #1 –
Well, I can tell you now that WMA has come a loooong way since version 2.  WMA9 can now support input resolutions at 96khz, with 24bit wordlength.  Doesn't mean a darn thing for CDs, but it's great for DVD backup, or professional production.  Speaking of which, WMA9 is actually being supported by quite a few software and hardware manufacturers because of it's high-compression high-resolution multi-channel capabilites.  It also supports lossless compression.  Do a search on the net, or check out Microsoft's WMA site, though of course you can take whatever they say with a grain of salt.  On the other hand, as you say AC3 is a tried-and-true standard, compatible with many hardware and software players, and compresses audio with a bare minimum of audible distortion/effects.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #2 –
i'd use ac3..  that way your music is decodable (if you make ac3-wavs) on any cd player connected digitally to a ac3-capable amp.  no computer necessary.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #3 –
if decoding on standalone players does not count, consider trying ogg vorbis which also will happily encode 5.1 sound.

bye
MS

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #4 –
WMA9Pro has a wayyyy higher quality at same bitrate than AC3.

AC3 however can be played on hardware decoders.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #5 –
Quote
if decoding on standalone players does not count, consider trying ogg vorbis which also will happily encode 5.1 sound.

I wouldn't recommend using Vorbis for 5.1 encodings - yet.

The channel coupling for multichannel streams hasn't been much developed, what makes Vorbis suboptimal for that purpose for the time being, according to the "experts" at Doom9.

I suggest, for now, that you stick with AC3, AAC or WMA.

Regards;

Roberto.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #6 –
Quote
WMA9Pro has a wayyyy higher quality at same bitrate than AC3.

How exactly do you know this to be true?

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #7 –
Quote
WMA9Pro has a wayyyy higher quality at same bitrate than AC3.

AC3 however can be played on hardware decoders.

Did you do any ABX tests?  If so, I wouldn't mind looking at your results.  Otherwise, your claims are just meaningless.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
WMA9Pro has a wayyyy higher quality at same bitrate than AC3.

How exactly do you know this to be true?

Probably the same way that the Raelians believe that their leader communicates with aliens.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #9 –
Quote
To be honest I'm impressed by MS codec (for multichannels purpose only !!   )  but in the other hand AC-3 (Vegas 4 expensive plug-in) is a standard...

The question is how soon you have to decide this and if it has to be "for free", because Nero Digital will be released this quarter, even with separate codecs for video and audio if I understood their website correctly. Then you could have AAC+ encoded multichannel audio that will sound much better than any AC-3 encoding at much lower bitrates and probably also better than WMA9.

If Ahead Software would have fixed the plugin manager of Nero Burning ROM in the meantime, normal AAC multichannel files would have been possible since several months already, but maybe someone will have mercy in this company at last. 

By the way, as far as I know, using PsyTEL's codecs and e.g. Speek's GUI also works for multichannel audio files already that can be played back in foobar2000 (don't know about Winamp). But if you are looking for a solution that also works on hardware players, this will probably take some more time, also for Nero Digital files.
ZZee ya, Hans-Jürgen
BLUEZZ BASTARDZZ - "That lil' ol' ZZ Top cover band from Hamburg..."
INDIGO ROCKS - "Down home rockin' blues. Tasty as strudel."

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #10 –
Try an 5.1 channel AC3 at 192kbit, and a WMA9 5.1 at 192kbit. No ABX needed at these bitrates. And the assumption that it works the same on higher bitrate ain't that dumb.

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #11 –
Quote
Try an 5.1 channel AC3 at 192kbit, and a WMA9 5.1 at 192kbit. No ABX needed at these bitrates. And the assumption that it works the same on higher bitrate ain't that dumb.

Well...  AC3 wasn't exactly designed for 192kbit 5.1 performance in mind, so its not a huge surprise if WMA outperformed it there.  But at bitrates 384 or 448, I don't see any reason to assume WMA would be "waaayyy higher quality" than ac3.

Ogg is better than mpc at 64kbits, but that doesn't exactly reflect on their ~160 kbit performance, right?

I would be happy to ask you...

Reply #12 –
Personally for my 5.1 audio I like to use aac.  Recently, I made a 5.1 track at 256kbps with PysTEL, the easiest way to do this is to get the aacmachine if you go to doom9.org you will find it in the download section.  As far as quality goes, well it sounded fine to me, however the cutoff frequency was 15kHz IIRC, so some others probably wouldn't hold the same opinion as me.  I can hardly wait for Nero's AAC+ then I can really start to do some low bitrate 5.1 audio.  And BTW hans-jürgen, it will play in winamp.  I got it to work, not sure what plugin I'm using though.