DTS, DVD-A and Minnetonka's Future!

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

AllAroundSurround

800 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
881
Location
Pennslyvania
I had a long Chat with Minnetonka Audio today about their products,such as D.T.S. SurCode and DVD-A software and where their Headed in the future! The following was their reply - Interesting reading!


:smokin: As far as higher sampling rates for DTS, right now that can only be done in-house at DTS. They do not even have that in their own hardware encoders. We hope a new developers kit will become available to us after it is implemented in their hardware. The last time we checked they were at least a year off from getting it in their hardware-so it would realistically be a couple of years before it would be available to you in a software form (and probably only in our full featured DVD version). Plus as far as 24/96 you must remember that DTS (and Dolby) are lossless encoding processes, meaning that they throw away alot of audio in the encoding process (to meet the 1.234 data rate for CD or 1.536 for DVD). Since it is already throwing alot of data away at 24/44.1 (at about a 4 to 1 ratio) its just going to throw away that much more audio at 24/96k as you have to meet the same data transfer rate as you were already compressing your 44.1 data to. But why use DTS when there is now DVD-A?
Did you know we have a DVD-A authoring software for under $500!!!!
The reason you must use DTS (or Dolby) is to get 6 channels of audio into the space of 2 channels of audio! DVD-V and CD's can only store stereo files! DTS and Dolby purpose is to data compress the 6 channels into the space of 2 (throwing away audio in a similar fashion as MP3's). The purpose of DVD-A is that it can already store 6 discrete channels of audio- so you don't need or ever want DTS or Dolby (as they lower sound quality but is needed in the case of DVD-V or CD as they are only stereo formats). So with DVD-A audio will sound exactly like it was recorded. However because of the limitation of DVD which has a data transfer rate of 9.6mb/s, surround 24/88 or 24/96 data must be compressed as it exceeds that data rate (it gets to be around 13mb/s or more). So DVD-A uses a special MLP lossless encoding for these files, which unlike DTS or Dolby, will not throw away any audio at all, so the audio will always stay pristine. We will be coming out with a SurCode MLP encoder later this fall. However the good news is that up to 24/192 stereo files or 24/48 surround is below the maximum DVD data rate, so needs no encoding. Our low cost discwelder STEEL software ($495) is a basic DVD-A authoring package and accepts all normal PCM files under the DVD data rate. Our discWelder CHROME ($2495) will also accept MLP encoded files and has many other advanced features. Check them out at our new site www.discwelder.com. Hope that answers everything.
Thanks,
Craig

 
I've dealt with Craig before, and he is a pretty good guy. This makes sense, except for one thing.

We are "saving" these old Q-Fi recordings on DTS CD to preserve the original quad mixes. By creating DTS CDs, we have a medium that can be played on a large amount of systems. If instead we created DVD-A's, we will severly limit the number of systems that the discs can be played on.

I am also still not sure if the Q8 quality sound requires "all the bits" to replicate the sound.

Interesting....

:-jon


 
Well... if we had it to do all over again... It would sure be nice to have all those old quad titles in 24/96 DVD-A instead of compressed DTS. I mean, DTS is quite good and I really enjoy all the conversions, but...

 
I guess we better save our raw wav files!

:-jon
 
I did!

:cool:

But they are all 16/44.1

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

But that's still better than DTS 4:1 compression!

:p

 
I'm starting to record everything at 24bit.
Is there any advantage to recording at 48KHz?

Don't I have to downsample if I do?

:-jon
 
I haven't done any DTS discs at anything other than 16/44.1. Tab, what's the scoop on doing DTS conversions from files at higher bit/sampling rates? Does surcode accept the larger files as is, and if so, what is the upper limit?

 
Cai, You can't put a wave file into the decoder at any rate hihger than 44.1 khz-you can go with 24 bit thou!
I've been doing 24 Bit since I got into itwith the Luna II Card.
I use the Gadget Labs mainly for spdif as it has coax / tos link out !
Rob
 
I was at CompUSA today and saw a little USB audio card thing from M-Audio for $79. It had digital outs and right on the box it says that it will pass AC-3 and DTS!!!!

So, you could use whatever card you wanted to record the tracks, then playback with this thing to hear the DTS mix.

This would be cool if you are short on IRQs and have a card that will record 4 channels but not pass the DTS bitstream!

:-jon
 
Everything I do is at 24bit 44.1. Surcode handles it just fine. As far as going further with this though...I've just done too many to start all over again. I'm nearing the end of my usefulness. It's all starting to become the same to me. I'm nearing the limit on my last drive, so I probably won't be doing too many more...maybe 330-340 total. Who knows, maybe I'll hit another vein or something... I would like to redo some of my earlier reels originally done in 16bit...but there aren't that many.
 
Well, I guess I am about in the middle between have and have not. All of my recordings were done at 48KHz and I still have them all in PCM wave format on CD-Rs, but I didn't record at 24 bit. I do down sample to 44.1 KHz, but at very high quality in order to DTS encode for CD listening. I still listen to my 48 KHz waves with CEP, but infrequently.

I picked up on a couple of discrepancies in the oiginal note from Craig at Minnetonka and wonder if anyone else did. The term lossless was used, but in a contradictory manner. "DTS (and Dolby) are lossless encoding processes..." Did I miss the point or was that a mistake? "Throw away alot of the audio..." I'm not sure how it's justifiable to talk about DD and DTS in the same context when refering to their compression technologies. I mean, 13/1 (DD) compared to about 3.8/1 (DTS), and in the same breath compare both of them to MP3? From what little I really understand about DTS encoding technology it seems to me that a bit stream with a byte containg 48 instead of 048 that has the 0 added back in during decoding isn't lossy at all, and I beleieve that's the bulk of the compression (lossless) done by Coherent Acoustics Encoding. The remainder has so little effect on the perceived audio that I'd bet the farm there isn't a human being on this planet that can hear the difference. Remember, we are talking about the human ear AND brain. I strongly believe only the machines know the difference. After all, if you want to talk about losses... what about the loss by your speakers? What about the loss due to the original recording? What about the loss by the ear AND brain? What are we comparing losses to anyway?

I hope I didn't get carried away with this. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. And, BTW... thanks for the warm welcome and invite.

Bill
 
I saw the errors it was just an error he knows what he's talking about . And I agree with you on the difference betweeen AC3 And D.T.S -And to compare it to mp3 is -well like apples and oranges both fruits but ... well you know!
 
Back
Top