Slashdot Mirror


Burn a DVD-AC3 Compatible CD-R

grant+harris writes "This interesting article shows how it is possible to burn AC-3 audio onto a normal CD-R. Will this technology usher a new type of online piracy when DVD-Audio and surround sound systems become more commonplace?" While this is only audio, it is a good step in the right direction.

65 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. DVD-Audio? by nedron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What does AC-3 have to do with DVD-Audio? DVD-Audio uses Meridian Lossless Packing, not Dolby Digital. The DVD-Audio disc may also have an AC-3 or (preferably) DTS track for backward compatibility, but the main mode is MLP.

    --


    * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    1. Re:DVD-Audio? by Aztech · · Score: 2

      Not quite, there is no set format, DVD-A like DVD video is capable of using 6 channel 24bit/96kHz or 192kHz/24-bit 2 channel PCM streams, AC3, DTS, MPEG1/2 Layer II multichannel.

    2. Re:DVD-Audio? by XNormal · · Score: 2

      The author of the article probably never heard of the DVD-Audio format and means "the audio format most commonly used on Video DVDs" i.e. AC3.

      With Sony's aggressive marketing of SACD most of us will probably never hear of the superior DVD-Audio format either...

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    3. Re:DVD-Audio? by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      Sony maybe agressively marketing SACD, but there are still just as many DVD-A discs being made. Have a look at High Fidelity Review. It also seems that the SACD format gets stuff I don't want to listen to, Toto's IV? While DVD-A gets more progressive music, Dishwalla.

    4. Re:DVD-Audio? by nedron · · Score: 2
      "the spec for SETTOP players must(!) play AC-3 to be a DVD player.. No other audio capability is required."

      WRONG!!!!

      This is one of the biggest misconceptions about DVDs.

      According to the spec, the disc must include (audio-wise) EITHER an LPCM track or a DD track. DD tracks are NOT required for DVDs. You can just as easily create a DVD with LPCM tracks (preferable for 2-channel music) and NO Dolby Digital track at all.

      Did you bother to check this before you posted?

      Actually, the spec for DVD-Audio does provide for standard video DVD, albeit in a space limited manner.

      And the DVD-Audio spec is not "given" at the DVD Demystified site, it is simply regurgitated in a simpler (sometimes incorrect) form. The specs are available for $5000 from the DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corporation.

      "Most players in the US add MPEG audio to the features"

      What are you talking about?!?! MPEG2 is an optional encoding method in the US but I'm unaware of any domestic (US) consumer receivers that include MPEGII decoders that would be required to play the tracks. What would the point be of releasing a DVD with an MPEG2 audio track when there's very little chance (I would say virtually no chance) that anyone could play it? Please name a commercially available US release of a DVD-Video with MPEG2 audio.

      "still fewer machines handle PCM audio on your movie."

      Now you're just being silly. Keep in mind that any disc that doesn't have a DD track must have an LPCM track and all DVD players must play it. For the first two or three years, nearly all DVDs were released only with LPCM tracks. I have many of them and they've played fine on every settop that both myself and my friends own, from the cheapest $50 Apex machine to the most expensive Macintosh transport.

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
    5. Re:DVD-Audio? by nedron · · Score: 2
      " the spec for SETTOP players must(!) play AC-3 to be a DVD player.. No other audio capability is required."

      Actually, maybe you're simply confused (easy enough when you use the DVD Demystified site as your source) by the requirements.

      In the absence of an LPCM track and the presence of a DD track, they player must be able to downconvert the DD track to a two-channel mix on the analog outputs. Onboard multichannel decoding is not required of players.

      And any way you cut it, the player is still required to support the playback of both LPCM and the downconversion of DD at the minimum.

      --


      * As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
  2. Does it make a difference what the RIAA thinks? by G0SP0DAR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At this point, where everyone with a computer and a CD burner are considered potential thieves, I don't think it changes the light in which anti-piracy advocates view computer users. It couldn't possibly get any worse!

    --


    Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
    1. Re:Does it make a difference what the RIAA thinks? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      Hell, I figure they think everyone with speakers is an audio thief. You're right: the view of the bigwigs is probably in such broad strokes that the details of the technology don't matter at all, just the fact that they know of some shadowy 'threat' on the horizon is bad enough.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  3. a paradox... by prisen · · Score: 2, Funny

    ok, so when does DVD flop and movies start coming on 2 CD's, one for video and one for audio? My CD changer becomes my movie player..

  4. What? Slashdot Advocates Piracy? by antis0c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this technology usher a new type of online piracy when DVD-Audio and surround sound systems become more commonplace?

    Then we have the comment from chrisd:

    While this is only audio, it is a good step in the right direction.

    Yeah, finding new ways to easily pirate software is a step in the right direction. Wrong. Getting the manufactures and owners of such technology to start believing that not all people are theives and they can allow open standards to exist to allow copying for backups, personal use such as having a copy of said music in my car player; while in my house; or at work is a step in the right direction. All this will do is piss off the RIAA/MPAA, they'll lobby for stricter laws, and we're back here again.

    --

    ..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
    1. Re:What? Slashdot Advocates Piracy? by SageLikeFool · · Score: 4, Interesting
      So all we have to do is be completely compliant to their whims and they will give us what we want?

      Sure, this will probably be used for "piracy" as much as any other technology is in this day and age. That doesn't mean it should be buried, and that doesn't mean it won't be legitimately used either. If you want to get rid of every tool and technology that is developed just because it could be used maliciously by somebody, you won't even be left with sticks and stones.

    2. Re:What? Slashdot Advocates Piracy? by jcoy42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, so how is this a new way to easily pirate software?

      Is mixing a 5.1 audio stream, burning it to CD, and listening to it pirating software?

      Tell me what I'm missing here. I don't see how it is pirating or how it is software.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
  5. Makes a Great Gag Gift by Winnipenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:
    Dolby has officially advised me that this CD-AC3 disc should not be used as a master for CD duplication or public distribution since there's no safeguards against someone playing it back in an audio CD player. But it's a great method for making one-off test mixes. I've considered added a standard audio disclaimer on track 1 that says something like "This disc contains Dolby Digital data. Do not play in a standard CD player or speaker damage can result".

    Could you think of a better gift for those you don't love?

  6. Laws anyone? by T-Kir · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Will this technology usher a new type of online piracy when DVD-Audio and surround sound systems become more commonplace?

    Or will it be gagged as being in violation of the DMCA?

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  7. With apologies to Illiad... by The+Pi-Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Net geeks
    there's no need to feel guilt
    I said, net geeks
    for the software you built
    I said, net geeks
    cause you're not in the wrong
    there's no need to feel unhappy

    Net geeks
    you can burn a CD
    I said, net geeks
    with your fave MP3s
    you can play them
    in your home or your car
    many ways to take them real far!

    It's fun to violate the D M C A!
    It's fun to violate the D M C A-AY!

    you have everything
    you need to enjoy
    your music with your toys!

    It's fun to violate the D M C A!
    It's fun to violate the D M C A-ay!

    you can archive your tunes!
    you can share over cable!
    you can annoy the record labels!

  8. Sweet! Acid 4.0 is out! 5.1 mixing in it! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

    Here is the link. Wait like two minutes so I can get my copy.

  9. Oh this is going to be fun! by Stonent1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Go to a friend's house who has an annoyingly loud car stereo that he keeps cranked at 11 all of the time booming some bass. Slip your "Phat bass remix" into his DVD player and show him the good stuff. Then say "you can keep the CD" next thing you know, he slides it into his (clarion/kenwood/eclipse whatever) car stereo that cost more than his car. And blows his eardrums with straight undecoded ac3. Just like he blows your eardrums with his bass while you are in his car.

  10. Does it work on macs? by myov · · Score: 2

    Does anyone know if this works on Macs? At $12 a disc, making test DVD's gets expensive really quickly.

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  11. You can do more than that... by ferrocene · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been out for over a year, maybe two. Oddly enough, I was just doing this last night. There's several programs that will do this, in fact there's a program that will do this in one easy step as opposed to SoftEncode...

    http://www.digital-digest.com/dvd/downloads/besu re .html

    "This program allows a direct conversion from VOB/AC3 to CD, using BeSweet (freeware) and SurCode DTS (for DTS-CDs : commercial-ware)!! Makes AC3-CDs, DTS-CDs and standard CDDA discs. "

    This is way cool. I took my roomate's Dave Matthews DVD, popped it through this program, and out came a burned CD in either DTS-CD, DD5.1, or regular CD. Way cool, and perfectly legal as far as I'm concerned. I'm making a backup and/or transfering the media to a different format.

    And the original article was published here:

    http://www.modernrecording.com/articles/soundav/ li nk46.html

    quite some time ago.

    Better than that, you can burn mini-dvd's on to a CD. There are several programs that will burn the ISO DVD directory structure on to a regular CD. This comes in handy for say, when I took my roomate's NIN DVD in DTS, and extracted the DTS track, and burned that onto a dvd-cd. The DTS track is a perfect 550mb. How cool is that. Also good for burning DD5.1/THX trailers onto a CD to take to the home theater shops to test out their systems. You can get full blown .vob's here:

    http://dvdgsm.free.fr/vob.html
    http://www.digit al-digest.com/dvd/downloads/traile rs.html

    I have my copy with 12 different trailers, including the simpsons THX one. It doesn't work in all players, you need to test them out. :)

    Fun programs to have:
    Surcode DTS encoder
    Sonic Foundry Soft Encode
    Gear Pro CD/DVD burner
    Scenarist NT dvd authoring program (it's a $39,000 program which can be used to make menus like the Matrix DVD)
    vobrator
    DVDDecrypter

    websites to visit:

    doom9.org
    apachez.has.it
    http://tatooine.fortu necity.com/jabba/220/miniDVD. html
    http://www.digital-digest.com/dvd/articles/d vd_con vert_minidvd.html

    and of course #pcdvd on efnet.

    --
    Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
    1. Re:You can do more than that... by Ryu2 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, most standalone DVD players won't play a mini-DVD (eg, DVD on a CD) because they detect the CD media, and assume it's either a audio or video CD, not a DVD.

      But it's certainly playable on any computer though -- much more cheaper than DVD-R for distributing short clips without losing the quality of DVD Video.

      --
      There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    2. Re:You can do more than that... by Tigris666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is way cool. I took my roomate's Dave Matthews DVD, popped it through this program, and out came a burned CD in either DTS-CD, DD5.1, or regular CD. Way cool, and perfectly legal as far as I'm concerned. I'm making a backup and/or transfering the media to a different format.

      I'm curious as to how it can be legal when you have made a backup of a dvd for your personal use, and the original was not owned by you? That doesn't sound legal to me :)

      --
      Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -- Homer J. Simpson
    3. Re:You can do more than that... by The+Rev · · Score: 2
      I'm making a backup and/or transfering the media to a different format.

      If this were legal, surely MP3 and OGGs of Other people's CDs would also be legal! :-)

  12. Mpeg2 is lossy... by Bonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Remember that even the MPEG2 format that DVD video vobs are stored in is lossy, although at such a high bitrate that, on a good DVD, it's close to impossible to tell.

    DivX and other Mpeg4 codecs may be unbearably noisy at lower levels you've seen, but when you raise the bitrate up to where a 1:30:00 movie will just fit on a CD-R, it's very nearly indistinguishable from DVD video. This goes double for animation. Many of the anime fansubs that show up on IRC and Usenet are encoded in such a way that a 200mb file is more than high enough quality to tape and share with your friends.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  13. surround sound AUDIO? by alienw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    High quality audio is not surround sound. Nobody listens to music on a surround sound rig and expects quality. Surround sound is good for movies, where you don't need good fidelity, but most surround sound systems suck if you're trying to listen to music. Audiophiles don't like subwoofer-satellite systems (because it's a cost-saving compromise that causes lots of problems), and a high-quality surround-sound system with 5 real high-end speakers and amplifiers would be prohibitively expensive ($20,000+). Anything cheaper, and it sounds like crap, because it's low-end.

    Besides, when you're at a concert, you don't sit in the middle of the stage, so the only source of sound is from the front. That would mean that there is exactly no point in recording surround-sound audio CDs. It's a marketing measure, if anything.

    And to the poor shmucks who listen to music on a satellite-subwoofer combo: I hope you don't ever come near a high-end audio system. If you do, you will probably realize that your system totally sucks, and will have to replace at least two of those speakers (and probably the amp). There is quite a bit of very tangible difference. Sort of like the difference between a 128k MP3 and the real uncompressed file.

    1. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by kmellis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you go out of your way to present your opinion and mildly interesting information in the most obnoxious manner possible, or is it a gift?

    2. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by alienw · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a gift. But in all seriousness, slashdot is starting to piss me off. For every person who has a clue, there are about a hundred who don't (and are far more vocal). Unfortunately, judging by little stupid remarks at the end of most stories, most of the editors belong to the group that doesn't have a clue.

    3. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ACing because, well I'm being careful.

      There's a whole subscene of people taking old Quadraphonic, C4, Fostex Q8, and Ambisonic records, and remastering them into Dolby AC3. I've only been playing with this for about 4 months now, but this has been around for a bit.

      Yes, yes, they don't sound as good as audiophile equipment, but it's not like my Mcintosh amp supports quad, neh? Besides, digital sucks anyways. (Sorry, couldn't resist the typical high-end audio rant, and it is getting more and more incorrect as processing power increases)

      You should probably note that a lot of the stuff out there in this format is NOT from "live" shows--it is music originally recorded to take advantage of multi-channel recording. This music is DYING due to the increasing rarity of the equipment and the media. Don't underestimate the importance of the historical aspect of such preservation. There's some really neat recordings out there that are being lost as musical artifacts. Sure, they also released these albums as stereo recordings, but the albums were conceptualized for one form of quad or another. (And before you go on about the 70's quad tech being so inferior to the surround of today, realize that much of Dolby's surround sound tech comes out of their acquisition of the original Sansui quad matrix)

      And lastly, I hate that typical stuck-up audiophile attitude. It's kinda like gourmets who attribute social status to fine food; all you are doing is alienating people who don't already agree with you, people who are mostly unimpressed by you, your attitued, or your toys. Who knows what you could have learned from them or taught them had you not pushed them away from something you enjoy. Besides, both music and food are waaaay too important experiences to limit other people's chances to learn to appreciate them better--they're two of the three things I can think of that humans can share that aren't subject to the shackles of semiotics

    4. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by El · · Score: 2
      Echoes don't exactly improve the sound.


      You've obviously never listen to Bach performed on an organ in a good cathedral. I beleive some Jazz musicians also recorded some tracks in a cathedral because of the great acoustics. In some case, echos DO greatly improve the sound, especially if the music was written for that kind of environment in the first place. Oh, and by the way, ask an audio technician what REVERB is, and why they frequently add it to music...

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    5. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by mabinogi · · Score: 2

      > Oh, and by the way, ask an audio technician what REVERB is, and why they frequently add it to music...

      Reverb added to music is controlled, the technician can add more or less, or change the type to make it sound how they like, and match it to the style of music.

      Echoes in a concert hall don't work that way....and unless it's been designed extremely well, (which is usualy the case in the good ones) then the echoes will pretty much suck. And even in the quality ones, echoes that sound good with chamber music, probably suck for metal, so the best situation for a general purpose concert venue, is one where there's little or no reverb or echoes from the environment (audiences usualy go a long way to absorbing the reverb anyway), and then have the right effect for the type of music added by the sound guys.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    6. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by radish · · Score: 2

      Besides, when you're at a concert, you don't sit in the middle of the stage, so the only source of sound is from the front. That would mean that there is exactly no point in recording surround-sound audio CDs. It's a marketing measure, if anything.

      IF (and it's a big if) the only point of your recording is to try to mimic a traditional concert hall scenario. Which, to be quite honest, is ignoring 95% of the recorded music in the world (and 99.9% of that which I listen to).

      I have a surround setup at home, no it's not audiophile quality, but it ain't no sub & satellite combo either, let's call it a happy medium. Running it in 2 channel with a good recording has noticably better clarity and tone, as would be expected, particularly as the best speakers are the front mains. But, I find myself listening to most stuff with DPL-II switced on. Why? Well on all CDs it brings in the centre speaker, which re-enforces the sound stage and evens it out. It also pulls the stage forward towards the listener, and improves the imagery no end. And on many CDs I have, you get real surround effects (I belive they're recorded with out of phase stuff for DPL). Sure it's not much good for orchestral stuff, but pop on (for instance) the new Kosheen album and you get amazing effects as pads travel up the room straight past you and vocals appear all over the place. When you look to music to provide an exciting listening experience (rather than simply an excuse to spend $$$ on getting that last 0.01% of performance) there's no beating it.

      And yes I have heard a $$$$ top end system, my parents have one, but I wouldn't trade it for mine. There's sounds great with the music they listen to, but to be honest just doesn't cut it for dance or pretty much anything non-acoustic. Horses for courses ;-)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    7. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by nathanh · · Score: 2
      Besides, when you're at a concert, you don't sit in the middle of the stage, so the only source of sound is from the front. That would mean that there is exactly no point in recording surround-sound audio CDs. It's a marketing measure, if anything.

      What a load of tripe. When you sit in a concert - and I mean a real concert - you hear echoes from every direction. The music most definitely does surround you. This is despite best efforts to dampen echoes with angled walls and ceilings. It still echoes. You still get a unique audio characteristic from the room.

      And if you don't believe this then why does an open air concert sound different to a hall concert, and different again to chamber music, and different again to studio music. The room plays a huge part in "processing" the source.

      If you are lucky enough to have a concert hall and a cathedral and a studio with a hifi in each then perhaps stereo is sufficient. The rest of us need a processor and multiple speakers to give us the illusion of multiple environments because we can only afford one room and one hifi.

    8. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by TheTomcat · · Score: 2

      a perfect example (flash warning).

      S

    9. Re:surround sound AUDIO? by kmellis · · Score: 2
      (offtopic; response to your sig)

      I like the ossblacksheep thing. It's been years since I looked at Cygwin - I found it pretty frustrating at the time. I found David Korn's "U/Win" much mre complete and integrated. I even bought the commercial product. Has Cygwin closer to parity with U/Win now?

  14. More from http://www.doom9.org by Codeala · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.doom9.org contains lots of information and tools to work with AC3 plus DVD, MP3 etc. The tools are mainly for expert users as they are mostly commandline only. Althought some of them come with GUI wrappers, I am not sure if they are much help as they are perfect examples of GUI from hell (no offends!). They will get the job done if you are willing to commit quite a bit of time.

    Of course if you don't have a good decoder/speakers don't waste your time on AC3.

    --

    Codeala - Just another mindless drone
  15. Please don't use their new-speak... by Sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...unless you really believe that copying some bits is really the equivolent of boarding a ship, raping and killing those on-board, stealing what is left, then burning the ship and the bodies of those you have murdered.

    If you want to refer to violation of copyright law, then please call it what it is.

  16. Re:How about just plain.. by lostchicken · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vorbis (ogg) makes a binary data stream. AC3 makes an encoded sound. That sound comes out of any system that can record and playback sound (standard compact disc, LaserDisc, etc.), and if that sound ends up in an AC3 surround processor, you get 5.1 music out.

    You can put an AC3 disc into a CD player, and play it straight out (not recommended, hard on speakers). All you'll hear are sounds like a modem chatting.

    --
    -twb
  17. WAV-padded AC-3 not reliable by yroJJory · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've done a considerable amount of testing 5.1 formats on CD-R and DVD-R (and variations). Yes, AC3 can be WAV-padded to look like a PCM audio file and subsequently put onto a red book CD-DA disc, but I've found that most older AC3 decoders don't understand the reverse bit-order format.

    On the flip side, WAV-padded DTS does work on all DTS decoders, as it was included in the format from the beginning.

    Additionally, DTS is a better format because it is fixed-rate 4:1 compression, as opposed to AC3's variable 12:1.

    --
    Jory
    1. Re:WAV-padded AC-3 not reliable by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      The compression rate isn't the key. Saying 4:1 is better than 12:1 is like saying that IMA audio compression is better than AAC, which it manifestly isn't.

      While a case can be made that DTS can be better than AC-3 in some cases (although way too many of the cited comparisons looked at 384 AC-3, where 448 is now standard for high-end discs), the fact that it takes up so much more space on the disc means that in many cases the video quality will need to be degraded to compensate.

      While DTS might have a slight edge in terms of maximum quality, AC-3 has a huge advantage in terms of compression efficiency, which means it wins is places where file size counts significantly.

  18. A primer on surround - Texas Style! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Wendy Carlos was into surround back in 'the day'. Here is a link detailing all the different 'surrounds' there are. A good read on a cool site.

    OT: Just say "Texas Style!" after everything you say. It's fun, and it confuses the hell out of people. Texas Style!

  19. This will really twist your head... by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    "This interesting article shows how it is possible to burn AC-3 audio onto a normal CD-R. Will this technology usher a new type of online piracy when DVD-Audio and surround sound systems become more commonplace?"

    Ok, how many DVDs do you have in your library? You own them, right? For the most part, this isn't really disputed. Those DVD have all the music associated with the movie. In effect, I'd like to argue that you own the soundtrack to that movie. So since I effectively own the music to the movie on DVD, I should be able to download it off the internet without violating any copyrights. Unless the version were vastly different from the one I already paid for on DVD (and yes, I did pay for every track used in the movie, since all that production cost is wrapped up in the price of the DVD), there is no reason why I should have to pay for a totally seperate audio CD I paid for the music and movie once, and now I have to pay just as much for only the music? How does this make sense again? Don't worry, it's just how they expect you to pay full price when you switch to a new format even though you already have the song in a previous format. Why am I paying for another licence when I should only be paying for the price of the new media itself? Because they are just as big a pirate as they claim we are.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  20. Mastering DVDs on CD-R by Animats · · Score: 2
    I'm more interested in putting video on CD-R for play in standard DVD players. I just got the Premiere 6.5 upgrade yesterday (it's finally shipping), which, I think, can author those things.

    Obviously you can't get that many minutes of video on a CD with reasonable compression, but that's OK. They're a useful way of shipping little video clips and demo reels around. I want to put my own computer animation demos on them, rather than having VHS tapes duplicated in bulk.

    I know, not all DVD players will play them. Anybody have a current list of which ones will?

    1. Re:Mastering DVDs on CD-R by Com2Kid · · Score: 2

      They are called Mini-DVDs, do a search for them on google.

      http://www.digital-digest.com/dvd/articles/odedi a_ minidvd.html

      Doom9's guide to MiniDVDs

      There is a DVD-Player compatibility list around someplace. . . .

      Oh fuuuck man, even Ulead's consumer software now days makes MiniDVDs!!!! cruddoooo!

      VCDhelp.com of course has the compatibility information, as per usual.

      Here

      Yeesh.

    2. Re:Mastering DVDs on CD-R by Animats · · Score: 2
      Besides, you're lucky to get 15 minutes of DVD quality video on a CD.. Stick with yer VCD and DivX pirac^H^H^H backups.

      Some of us can actually create our own content.

      Premiere 6.5 is shipping with something called "DVDit! 2.5 LE", one of those horrid "consumer" apps with a full-screen interface and stupid "themes". This supposedly can author MiniDVD disks, which they call "cDVD". We'll see how well this works.

  21. Works on many ordinary CD players too by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not only can you burn surround AC-3 or DTS audio onto a standard CD-R, you may not even need a DVD player to play it back :-)


    If you have a CD player with a digital output, and that is connected to a surround-decoding amplifier, chances are that'll play it back just fine. I burned a CD with various bitrate AC-3 tracks mixed with DTS tracks (CD-Text too), and stuck it in my 300-disc Sony CD jukebox. The signal was piped into my Yamaha surround receiver, and played it back perfectly - even scrolled the filenames by on the CD player's display. Very cool, listening to surround sound from a standard CD player.


    That got me thinking - perhaps I could encode all my CDs down to 192 Kbps 2-channel AC-3 files, and squeeze much more music onto each CD. Load up the jukebox & get 7 weeks of uninterrupted audio...


    'Cept it didn't work, of course - in order to play back on a standard CD player, the compressed AC-3 file has to be padded out to ordinary redbook audio rates - it takes the same amount of disc space. Still only ~80 minutes of audio, regardless of encoding.


    Never mind - I'll encode my whole MP3 collection into AC-3 files, then burn a standard DVD (with still images & a lot of music) on my nifty DVD+RW drive. I can still fit many hundreds of hours on a single disc that way. Too bad I don't have a jukebox DVD player...


    And, of course, I can still rip my Luc Besson - Atlantis DVD's soundtrack onto a DTS surround CD, and replace the humble 2-channel CD soundtrack I have in the jukebox with full 5.1 audio :-)

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    1. Re:Works on many ordinary CD players too by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 3, Informative

      Never mind - I'll encode my whole MP3 collection into AC-3 files ...

      Uhh.. many DVD players can play MP3s on a data disk just fine. Why recompress them?

    2. Re:Works on many ordinary CD players too by Namarrgon · · Score: 2
      Because most of those DVD players can only play MP3s on a CD-R - they don't even check for MP3s if it's a DVD.

      Also because if it's in AC-3, it works in any DVD player, not just some.

      And finally, because then I can give it my own navigation system, album art etc, rather than relying on the DVD player's navigator (which, on an Apex AD-600, is pretty bad).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:Works on many ordinary CD players too by Namarrgon · · Score: 2
      Got mine from Germany.

      Been looking for years - I knew there used to be a Region 2 disc ages back, but I never could find one for sale. Then they went & re-released it :-)

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:Works on many ordinary CD players too by iainl · · Score: 2

      Thanks muchly. Amazon.de now have my order.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  22. Re:Sweet! Acid 4.0 is out! 5.1 mixing in it! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

    You might want to try Robitussin. Or peyote.

  23. Re:Ipod damnit! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's TRUE! You do look like a total jackass!

  24. Burning DVDs is not THAT expensive by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Right now, a DVD mastering station is about as expensive as CD-R recorders were 5 years ago. That is, they cost ten's of thousands of dollars for the hardware and software.

    I guess this guy hasn't heard of the iMac.

    1. Re:Burning DVDs is not THAT expensive by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      But if you just want to listen to it or show it to your friends (as the article says), a DVD burner and appropriate software is all you need.

  25. Re:Ipod damnit! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

    Happy to be of service. :)

  26. DVD-Audio != AC3 by ubergeek · · Score: 2, Informative
    All DVD-Audio discs must contain an uncompressed or MLP-compressed LPCM version of the DVD-Audio portion of the program. For further flexibility and added compatibility with existing DVD-Video players, DVD-Audio discs may also include video programs with Dolby Digital, DTS, and/or LPCM tracks.
    -- Pohlmann, Principles of Digital Audio, Fourth Edition
    LPCM (Linear Pulse Code Modulation)and MLP compressed LPCM allow for a variety of word sizes and sample rates. But AC3 != DVD-Audio. As the root said, there may be AC3 (or DTS, et cetera) tracks included on a DVD-A disc, but those are not 'DVD-Audio tracks'. They are included for "added compatibility with existing DVD-Video players".
    1. Re:DVD-Audio != AC3 by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2

      Most SACD/DVD-A players only have analog out and have a built in decoder.

      The few DVD-A players that I have seen that have had S/PDIF outs would only output AC-3, DTS, or PCM.

      I don't think there is a spec describing the proper way to put MLP compressed LPCM on the wire, so no decoders support it, and no players output it.

      I have seen DVD players that have S/PDIFs that do 2 channel 192kHz at 24-bit PCM. That is enough bandwidth. But there isn't a spec for putting the multichannel data on the wire, so no decoders have it implimented yet, and player don't output it.

  27. True 3D audio for music - Ambisonics by XNormal · · Score: 2

    Most 5.1 channel mixes are done using simple pairwise panning between two adjacent speakers to place the sound sources around you. This may be OK for movie effects but not for capturing the spatial nuances of a recording venue.

    Ambisonics is a true 3D audio recording format. It is composed of 4 components: X, Y, Z and W that may be captured by the Soundfield Microphone or synthesized by audio ray tracing of the virtual venue.

    The four components of the Ambisonics B format are a mathematical decomposition of the 3D sound wavefront at a point in space and are not directly related to any particular speaker placement. It may be decoded using simple linear operations into any speaker configuration. The 3D fidelity of the playback will depend on the number and placement of the speakers.

    Note that 5.1 audio is still just 2D. The equivalent Ambisonics format would require only the W, X and Y components. With an additional top speaker you could feel the height of the concert hall in an Ambisonics recording.

    One of the problems with Ambisonics is the chicken-and-egg problem - lack of enough media and playback equipment.

    The significance of this is that AC3 on CD-R could let more people experiment with Ambisonics - the W, X and Y channels will be pre-decoded to a typical 5.1 speaker placement configuration. The AC3 should probably be recorded at the maximum quality setting of 640kbps. The resulting disk can be played back on any home theater system.

    The Z channel can be somehow also stored on the disk so an Ambisonics-aware decoder could get full 3D audio. 3 of the 5 channels can be linearly combined to get back the W, X and Y channel and together with the Z channel you can decode it to any speaker configuration.

    There is one particular speaker configuration that makes Ambisonics much easier to understand: imagine 8 speakers at the points of a cube. The W channel is fed to all speakers in the same polarity. The X channel is fed to the 4 right speakers with positive polarity and 4 left speakers with negative polarity. The Y channel is fed to the 4 front speakers with positive polarity and 4 back speakers with negative polarity. By now you can probably guess how the Z channel is connected.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  28. Re:Actually, you are the "new-speak"er here... by Gumshoe · · Score: 3, Informative
    The word "piracy" has been applied to plagiarism and copyright violation for over two hundred years. Edward Gibbon uses it in this sense in his Memoirs of My Life, first published in 1796:

    I am at a loss how to describe the success of the work, without betraying the vanity of the writer. The first impression was exhausted in a few days; a second and third edition were scarcely adequate to the demand; and the bookseller's property was twice invaded by the pirates of Dublin. My book was on every table, and almost on every toilette.


    Please allow me humbly to suggest that, when a meaning has been in common usage for hundreds years, it is the people who try to remove this meaning that are guilty of revising the English language for their own purposes.


    Etymologically, you are absolutely correct. However, the modern meaning of the word "piracy" (when used in this context) refers to actions that aren't strictly copyright violations. For example circumnavigating region encoding on DVDs is covered by fair use rights and is thus not a "copyright violation" but is "piracy" none-the-less.

    It seems that it is the RIAA's intention to criminilise (in the minds of the public as well as the government) actions that would otherwise not be considered "crimes" if "copyright violation" was used in favour of "piracy". As mentioned by Sanity in the original post, this is literally new-speak.
  29. Priceless by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    And to the poor shmucks who listen to music on a satellite-subwoofer combo: I hope you don't ever come near a high-end audio system. If you do, you will probably realize that your system totally sucks, and will have to replace at least two of those speakers (and probably the amp). There is quite a bit of very tangible difference. Sort of like the difference between a 128k MP3 and the real uncompressed file.

    DVD-Audio disc: $20

    Satellite-subwoofer combo: $600

    High-end audio system: $20,000+

    Not being an elitist, audiophile prick, so you can't tell the difference: Priceless!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  30. Audiophiles can bite my thing. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

    Besides, when you're at a concert, you don't sit in the middle of the stage, so the only source of sound is from the front.

    Have you ever been to a concert? There's ALWAYS some asshole behind you talking loudly to his buddy while you're trying to enjoy the music.
    With surround-sound audio, that experience can be accurately recreated!

    What's the point of stereo, anyway? All the sound is coming from a single point -- the stage! Maybe there's a PA system with a big speaker at each end of the stage, but chances are the same signal (or close to it) is coming out of both speakers, so that the balance is the same no matter where in the venue you're seated.

    The sole purpose of recorded audio should NOT be to accurately reproduce the experience of being at a concert (what ever that is).

    And to the poor shmucks who listen to music on a satellite-subwoofer combo: I hope you don't
    ever come near a high-end audio system.


    I hope so too, because it would probably mean I would have to get a lecture on fidelity from the insufferable asshole that owns the system.

    Our "low-end" systems are good enough for us "poor shmucks". We're happy. Leave us alone.

  31. Uhuuuh... by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    Sure it's usually edited. But the the producers had to commision the artists to produce the entire song, which is factored into the movie production budget whose cost in it's entirety is passed on through the DVD, distrubted via 100,000s of copies. This cost is also defrayed by movie-goers at the theaters, who's primary job is not to sell you tickets, but popcorn and condiments. In fact, that is the entire reason hollywood exists-- To sell you food. And you think I'm joking. Nope. In any case, since all that cost is a package deal with the DVD I bought, I own the soundtrack to that DVD. Why pay for it twice when you've already paid for it once? And believe me, you have paid for it.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  32. Conventional stereo by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    You can get good surround effects from conventional stereo by placing your speakers to your left and right, where your ears are, not in front of you, where your eyes are. After all, we listen to sounds, we don't look at them. Try it sometime. Maybe you won't need to make Dolby AC3 CDs.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Conventional stereo by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Number of listening points required to hear 3d sound: two. Your ears.

      Number of sound sorces required to create 3d sound: 1.

      Sound can be identified as coming from a direction by the differences in what your ears hear. If somebody is talking to you, standing directly to your left, then you'll hear them perfectly in your left ear, but your right ear will hear it a bit later, and muffled by your head being in the way.

      With two point sources for creating sound, and a model of what the average human head is like, you can dynamically adjust what's coming out of each speaker to adjust for that, and create fully '3d' sounding sound without requiring more than two speakers. But unless the acoustic model being used matches you perfectly, it won't sound perfect. Hence, it can simply be easier to create more sound sources.

      For real fun, go find an Aureal sound card and play with the 'helicopter' demo. It's....enlightening.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  33. Sticks and stones..... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2

    Can break bones -- all kids are taught that lesson / rhyme at a very early age!

  34. Re:Two drives by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    Ever watched the Wizard of Oz and listened to Dark Side of The Moon?

    Just synch the too up before you drop ;-)

  35. Re:Two drives by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

    This is what dts does theatrically; the soundtrack is on CD, and is synced with the film going through the projector.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.