what do people use around here to encode multichannel PCM audio to 5.1 DTS 96/24, on a PC/Windows platform?
(Linux platform is also OK)
(Linux platform is also OK)
Given your understanding, 96/24 DTS encoding would be pointless. Yet, many commercial recordings exist at DTS 96/24 (e.g. - Genesis, Depeche Mode). Are you thinking that commercial recordings encoded at DTS 96/24 have musical content above 24kHz? Or in what way would commercial recordings encoded at DTS 96/24 differ from your recordings at DTS 96/24? Is it the SACD source that makes the difference?
SACD source will only give you ultrasonic noise above 23kHz, and a heck of a lot of it at that. This is caused by the heroic noise shaping used to make what was designed as an archival format only (DSD) into something that Sony could flog (SACD) and it aliases down into the audible range. You can prove this to yourself immediately.
Neil - I have converted my SACD collection over to DTS-MA - I used Adobe Audition 3 as the DAW - should I have used a filter to remove this noise above 23Khz?
Glad you got the encoder working for you.
Given your understanding, 96/24 DTS encoding would be pointless.
Perhaps you can just cut to the chase and explain to me the technical advantage of DTS 96/24 vs core DTS, on 24bit input audio that has no significant content above 24 kHz? (I've never seen DTS explain it either, so I'm all eyes).Yet, many commercial recordings exist at DTS 96/24 (e.g. - Genesis, Depeche Mode). Are you thinking that commercial recordings encoded at DTS 96/24 have musical content above 24kHz?
Or in what way would commercial recordings encoded at DTS 96/24 differ from your recordings at DTS 96/24? Is it the SACD source that makes the difference?
AARGH.
Sorry George, but i could not help it.
SACD source will only give you ultrasonic noise above 23kHz, and a heck of a lot of it at that. This is caused by the heroic noise shaping used to make what was designed as an archival format only (DSD) into something that Sony could flog (SACD) and it aliases down into the audible range. You can prove this to yourself immediately.
Take any Depeche Mode SACD/DVD set.
Record the first track, or any track, into a DAW off both the SACD & the DTS-DVD.
Make sure you decode in the player though, and input 6 analogue streams where all is identical except the source.
Now run a spectrum analysis of the DTS against the SACD.
You'll see a huge noise shaping spike common to all SACD (I will redo this tomorrow & Post the pictures for all to see).
The Dynamic range will be between 60 to 70dB on the SACD - no more.
The DTS on the other hand will have no ultrasonics, and a much higher dynamic range (around 110dB) and further, it sounds better.
Best reason I can think of for using 96kHz is because there will be fewer quantization steps in the DAC, and thus less quantization distortion by a large factor.
There is no reliable evidence anyone can hear anything above 23kHz, and this reduces with age unless you practice, like all our senses.
It's all about DAC design, and that it is cheaper to make a great sounding 96k DAC than it is to do the same quality on a 48k one.
I will go do the pictures tomorrow - honest!!
That's hard to say for certain. All I can say is that I personally prefer to remove as much of the ultrasonic crap as possible as my Adam monitors extend up to 35kHz.
I also have a switch in the Denon, allowing me to set a 50kHz filter on SACD streams, which limits the noise to 25kHz on playback. Run the beast in, and take a look at what you have got there.
Enlighten me, oh wise one.
Perhaps you can just cut to the chase and explain to me the technical advantage of DTS 96/24 vs core DTS, on 24bit input audio that has no significant content above 24 kHz? (I've never seen DTS explain it either, so I'm all eyes).
Before I got into doing this, I was under the impression (for some reason I don't recall) that the 'extended' functionality operated on content above 18kHz, and the 'core' below, making DTS 96/24 nominally useful, but now that it seems the extended functionality is only for >24kHz content, I'm not seeing the point. IOW I thought that 'core' DTS lossy perceptual encoding tended to discard content above ~18 kHz, while DTS 96/24 encoding/playback lets you keep it.
Ultimately I guess it comes down to a proprietary question of what is the DTS lossy perceptual encoder model?
Plain DTS encoders accept 24 bit input, however that does not mean all those bits will be there after encoding. At least the DTS 96/24 decoder should not cut the output samples to 16bit during decoding. (I'm not sure whether older DTS decoders would do that)... the fact that DTS 96/24 allows 24 bit input is fine with me, and if vanilla DTS doesn't, that would be a point in DTS 96/24's favor.
Enter your email address to join: