DTS-CD software for DTS 96/24 encoding (PC)?

[ssully]

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)

 

[georgeshannon]

I use DTS Pro Encoder.

 

[neil wilkes]

DTS-HD MAS Suite, version 2.
Also available for Mac OSX

 

[Bob Romano]

I also use DTS-HD MAS Suite, version 2 and it is REALLY sweet!!!

 

[ssully]

Thanks. I tried Surcode DTS Pro Encoder (v 1.0.29) but there was no 96/24 option. I realize that 96/24 refers to the format of the input file, but still -- the output was plain 'DTS' according to my AVR, albeit at 1536 kbps (my AVR will show 'DTS 96/24' when a true DTS 96/24 bitstream is fed to it). Perhaps the version I tried is too old (from 2002)?

I will check out DTS-HD MAS Suite if I can.

 

[georgeshannon]

DTS Pro Encoder and Surcode DTS Encoder are two separate applications. I don't believe Surcode DTS Pro Encoder exists. At least Minnetonka doesn't list it among the Surcode family of software they sell on their website.

http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/products/surcode.html

Surcode DTS Encoder does not have the 24/96 encoding option. DTS Pro Encoder does. You might be confusing the two together. Here is the manual for DTS Pro Encoder:

http://www.dts.com/DownloadDocument.aspx?q=dad1107f-fd30-4009-81ec-cb940006c1b9

Hope this helps.

 

[ssully]

You're right, I was confusing the two. Thanks!

 

[DKA]

there is, however, a Surcode MLP encoder.

 

[ssully]

Dont' really need mlp, thanks, as I won't be transferring these to hard playback media. To losslessly compress the raw .wav files, I use FLAC...which also lets me add tags.

 

[ssully]

I got DTS Pro Series Surround Encoder to work...it's sweet and fairly easy to use.

...though looking at my mono wav files (recorded off an SACD player at 96kHz sample rate) I see there's really no spectral musical content above 22kHz. As I understand it, for content under 24 kHz DTS 96/24 uses the standard DTS 'core' encoding/decoding anyway. So for such recordings I'll probably record at 48/24 and stick to 'plain' DTS encoding, as 96/24 encoding seems pointless.

 

[georgeshannon]

Glad you got the encoder working for you.

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?

 

[neil wilkes]

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?

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!!

 

[georgeshannon]

Thanks for the explanation. So it is the SACD that limits the conversion process. When I converted my SACDs into DVDA, I used 24/48. Didn't know why at the time, but now I have a good rationale.

Thanks Neil.

 

[MC Maniac]

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?

 

[neil wilkes]

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?

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.
If there is no extended frequency response, then filter away - but check that you're not removing wanted material too!! I blew that one by accident once by setting the LPF too low....

That DTS-HD MA Lossless is great, isn't it! I really like the StreamPlayer too - have you found the DTS decoder yet?

 

[ssully]

Glad you got the encoder working for you.

Given your understanding, 96/24 DTS encoding would be pointless.

Enlighten me, oh wise one.

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?

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?

 

[ssully]

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!!

Neil, I'm with you on SACD mostly, but AIUI the available dynamic range *within the CD band (0-20kHz)* on an SACD is comparable to CD's 96 kHz (and more with noise-shaping). That's the tradeoff...lousy 'overall' DR but quite acceptable within the frequency band that matters. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

I'm all for >16bit recording and production/manipulation. So 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. The 'restoration' of >24kHz content via extended DTS, not so much....and that is the point they market the '96' on.

I agree that the utility of higher SR than Redbook is really about achieving cheaper high-quality antialiasing/imaging filtering, (though in practice I think these effects are HIGHLY over-blamed for supposed audible inferiority of Redbook SR). So starting with a 96kHz recording has merit on paper at least. And my own AVR's (Pioneer) 'native' sample rate is 96kHz, so it won't resample anything input at that rate...this is probably common (unless they've all moved to 192kHz). But what does 96kHz have to do with requantization, which is a phrase I associate with changing PCM wordlengths? The DTS 96/24 encoder's ability to accept 96kHz input eliminates the resampling to 48kHz that core DTS encoding would require; is that what you mean?

 

[ssully]

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.

SACD spec (Scarlet Book) recommends to manufacturers of consumer SACD players that they include a 50 or 100kHz lowpass output filter. I'm pretty sure most do. Interesting that the Denon allows you to switch it in or out. Is it a consumer or a pro unit?

 

[georgeshannon]

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?

No, I'm just wondering why you thought your encoding at DTS 24/96 was pointless. As Neil then pointed out its the SACD source that makes it pointless.

 

[Ge Someone]

.. 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.

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).