(2018-07-09, 04:49 AM)dwalkerdon Wrote: Find the old 1999 Image Entertainment DVD, it has the Original Dolby Stereo Mix (In Ac3) but you can convert it to WAV to get rid of the dialnorm. Quite a few copies are on ebay right now

DialNorm isn't the problem. Turn your volume up a few extra notches and you've essentially defeated dial norm.

Dolby Digital 2.0 @ 192 kb/s has around a 10:1 lossy data compression ratio that a wav conversion can never fix. Going from a laserdisc's PCM audio track is a lossless track, and all things equal, should always sound better than a DD 2.0 track.

(2018-07-12, 02:43 AM)Wisp of Smoke Wrote:

(2018-07-09, 04:49 AM)dwalkerdon Wrote: Find the old 1999 Image Entertainment DVD, it has the Original Dolby Stereo Mix (In Ac3) but you can convert it to WAV to get rid of the dialnorm. Quite a few copies are on ebay right now

DialNorm isn't the problem. Turn your volume up a few extra notches and you've essentially defeated dial norm.

Dolby Digital 2.0 @ 192 kb/s has around a 10:1 lossy data compression ratio that a wav conversion can never fix. Going from a laserdisc's PCM audio track is a lossless track, and all things equal, should always sound better than a DD 2.0 track.

I actually compared lossy vs lossless at various different bitrates, and they sounded exactly the same (on the computer using VLC/MPC-HC and Kodi on an android box, not on an official AC3 decoder/ Hardware). I converted A Barco Auro 3D Demo audio file that originated as a DTS HD Master Audio track to Flac 5.1, then i converted it to 384 kbps AC-3,  then 640 Kbps AC-3, and then Opus Codec at 128 KBPS

I was listening to the tracks using Kodi on an android Box (I think that since i converted them using handbrake and i was listening directly through the headphones and not using an AC3 output to amplifier, there was no dialnorm/DRC applied) and they sounded Identical!!!

Not bad for an Audio Compression codec that dates back to the early 90's! The theatrical version of DD uses no Dialnorm/DRC (it uses no Metadata), and the volume sounds identical to the source. When you convert an AC-3 file (home version) to another format it strips the dialnorm/Drc from the file and the volume is identical to the source.


Dialnorm/ DRC is something that should have never been used in Dolby Digital on DVD (the Dialnorm/DRC was originally meant for Broadcast). This is the reason why everyone thought DTS sounds better than Dolby Digital (it does, but the only reason why it sounds better is because DTS uses no Dialnorm/DRC while with Dolby Digital
it is forced upon the end user with no ability to disable it).

Dialnorm IS and always will be the problem with DD (and TrueHD), and it has nothing to do with the compression ratio. 

I bet you would not be able to tell the difference between a converted AC3 2.0 file ( one that you converted to AAC, OGG, OPUS, ETC) and its Laserdisc/Blu-Ray PCM counterpart ( I converted the 2.0 AC3 Pro Logic track from the Phantom Menace DVD to Opus and muxed it into the Blu-ray Rip that has 7.1 sound, and to me the 2.0 mix sounds better than the 7.1 mix, despite being from a highly compressed source)
 
here is the link to the Phantom Menace 2.0 track if you want to hear how it sounds converted to another format with no Dialnorm/DRC. it is in the Opus Codec, so use VLC, MPC-HC, any program that can play OPUS files


http://www.mediafire.com/file/mvuhgril5m...c.mp3.opus

Wisp of Smoke, I want you to play this track on your sound system at a high volume, and then tell me how your neighbors will react!!!!!!!!
Compare it to the DTS HD- Master Audio mix on the Phantom Menace BD and tell me what you think about the sound quality!!!

I am NOT a fan of normalized audio. The reason why is because every song/movie/ TV show was recorded using different equipment, using different volumes, different instruments, and messing with the gain will ruin the original audio quality

I know that PCM is better, so no argument there, but I am just letting you know that lossy can sound as good as a lossless file (depending on the Codec and the sound mix)

I know Dolby Digital can sound fine, as it is a somewhat efficient lossy codec. But no matter what, it IS a lossy codec, and at 192 kb/s, certainly not what one would call mildly lossy. We are no longer limited to these restrictions and is why most bluray use lossless, be it PCM, DTS-MA, or Dolby TruHD.

So if I am going to go through the trouble of ripping an audio track, doing edits if required to keep sync due to occasional frame edits at reel changes, etc.. I am going to go for the best track possible. And that's lossless PCM.

The other thing PCM has over 2-ch Dolby Digital used on DVD was "typically" the PCM tracks had no dynamic range compression or alterations. In this case, you mentioned a disc which had the original mix, but the original mix can also mean the original dynamic range as well as full frequency response as well. Again, I'd trust a laserdisc PCM track over a DD track for both of these parameters. Especially with DD's joint frequency coding at higher frequencies.

And I'll reiterate what I posted earlier: Turning up your volume control a few extra ticks on your original Phantom Menace Dolby Digital tracks will have it sounding *exactly* the same as your wav converted file of the same track.

(2018-07-13, 12:17 AM)Wisp of Smoke Wrote: I know Dolby Digital can sound fine, as it is a somewhat efficient lossy codec. But no matter what, it IS a lossy codec, and at 192 kb/s, certainly not what one would call mildly lossy. We are no longer limited to these restrictions and is why most bluray use lossless, be it PCM, DTS-MA, or Dolby TruHD.

So if I am going to go through the trouble of ripping an audio track, doing edits if required to keep sync due to occasional frame edits at reel changes, etc.. I am going to go for the best track possible. And that's lossless PCM.

The other thing PCM has over 2-ch Dolby Digital used on DVD was "typically" the PCM tracks had no dynamic range compression or alterations. In this case, you mentioned a disc which had the original mix, but the original mix can also mean the original dynamic range as well as full frequency response as well. Again, I'd trust a laserdisc PCM track over a DD track for both of these parameters. Especially with DD's joint frequency coding at higher frequencies.

And I'll reiterate what I posted earlier: Turning up your volume control a few extra ticks on your original Phantom Menace Dolby Digital tracks will have it sounding *exactly* the same as your wav converted file of the same track.

No it won't sound exactly the same. Dialnorm/DRC affects everything. Like I said before, converting the AC3 track to another format will strip the Dialnorm/DRC. And I did state that PCM is better, but you should not rule out the DVD tracks if necessary. And how does the phantom menace 2.0 track that I posted sound on your setup vs the Blu-Ray 7.1 DTS HD MA track?

(2018-07-13, 01:59 AM)dwalkerdon Wrote: No it won't sound exactly the same. Dialnorm/DRC affects everything. Like I said before, converting the AC3 track to another format will strip the Dialnorm/DRC. And I did state that PCM is better, but you should not rule out the DVD tracks if necessary. And how does the phantom menace 2.0 track that I posted sound on your setup vs the Blu-Ray 7.1 DTS HD MA track?

But it doesn't. It is a global level offet only.  I have a professional Dolby Digital encoder and have made encodings with and without Dial Norm.  Global volume offset only.  The earliest Dolby Digital decoders allowed for Dial Norm to be defeated.  These also showed a playback volume change only. 

What will some of the differences be between the dedicated 2.0 track and the DTS 7.1 track? Depending on your bass management, the amount of LFE will be different going to your sub.  Depending on the mix, it's more likely the 2.0 track will have some degree of magic surrounds, as all matrix decoded systems have some degree of bleed through to adjacent channels with complex material. Discrete multi-channel will not. If Fox provided a 2.0 track, keep in mind too it likely is a completely different mix than the 7.1 mix.

Guys can you start a new thread, maybe in the technical forum? 

Anyway back on topic, I have the LBX LD (41518) and I plan to cap it soon.

(2018-07-13, 01:12 PM)zoidberg Wrote: Guys can you start a new thread, maybe in the technical forum? 

Anyway back on topic, I have the LBX LD (41518) and I plan to cap it soon.

I agree as I also pointed out in my DH3 thread. dwalkerdon why don't you start your own thread to discuss what ac3 2.0 tracks you like and the finer issue of dialnorm.

Zoid I'd love a copy when you are done if you are willing to share...

(2018-07-13, 01:12 PM)zoidberg Wrote: Guys can you start a new thread, maybe in the technical forum? 

Anyway back on topic, I have the LBX LD (41518) and I plan to cap it soon.

I would love to hear how it sounds!!!! I don't understand why Universal did not include the original mix on the DVD and The Blu ray-version!!!

(2018-07-13, 04:03 PM)PDB Wrote:

(2018-07-13, 01:12 PM)zoidberg Wrote: Guys can you start a new thread, maybe in the technical forum? 

Anyway back on topic, I have the LBX LD (41518) and I plan to cap it soon.

I agree as I also pointed out in my DH3 thread. dwalkerdon why don't you start your own thread to discuss what ac3 2.0 tracks you like and the finer issue of dialnorm.

Zoid I'd love a copy when you are done if you are willing to share...

okay PDB

(2018-07-13, 01:12 PM)zoidberg Wrote: Guys can you start a new thread, maybe in the technical forum? 

Anyway back on topic, I have the LBX LD (41518) and I plan to cap it soon.

Excellent! Let me know how it goes-just be prepared because the video transfer can be hard to work with on some players and the audio is phenominal.