Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Burn a DVD-AC3 Compatible CD-R 216

Posted by chrisd from the zoiby-wants-to-buy-internet-stocks dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Burn a DVD-AC3 Compatible CD-R More

Burn a DVD-AC3 Compatible CD-R

Comments Filter:

  • DVD-Audio? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nedron ( 5294 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:42PM (#4160933) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

      • DVD-Audio != AC3 (Score:2, Informative)

        by ubergeek ( 91912 )
        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".
    • 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...
      • Sony maybe agressively marketing SACD, but there are still just as many DVD-A discs being made. Have a look at High Fidelity Review [highfidelityreview.com]. 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.

  • Does it make a difference what the RIAA thinks? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by G0SP0DAR ( 552303 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:42PM (#4160935)
    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!

  • Cool... (Score:1, Troll)

    by FuzzyMan45 ( 451645 )
    Whee...just another thing for the MPAA/RIAA/Government to put DRM and copy-protection type things in. Yippee, a DVD player that won't play old-style DVD-Audio, but only new-style. Without CD-R support, or backwards compatibility. I just can't wait.

  • a paradox... (Score:2, Funny)

    by prisen ( 578061 )
    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..
    • Erm, the video & audio data on DVD's still take up 4-7gb, so the only way to burn it on to two cd's would be secondary (lossy) encoding, such as DivX or somesuch, which is already widespread. It's nice that there's a good article about this, but DVD rippers have been including AC3 tracks on DivX DVD rips for some time, although generally these rips require special patches or software only available on a computer to play.

      • Mpeg2 is lossy... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bonker ( 243350 )
        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.

  • I find that the easiest surround sound is a nice pair of Sennheisers.

    No need to fool with encoding and tricking your dvd player!

  • What? Slashdot Advocates Piracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by antis0c ( 133550 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:45PM (#4160957)
    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.

    • Re:What? Slashdot Advocates Piracy? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SageLikeFool ( 547462 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:05PM (#4161022)
      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.

    • 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.

    • ... which is saving money for the artists by letting them distributed high-quality samples of their music on a cheap CD(-R,-RW). An average consumer can use the same method to make remixes of their Audio DVDs. As for pirates, they generally don't care that much about top quality, so anyway they won't go and buy an Audio DVD and get an MP3. If someone just released every song as a 32MHz/Mono MP3, sales would go way up because non-pirates will discover and buy what they like and pirates wouldn't bother making higher quality tracks easily available.
    • Not really, AC3 audio is just audio, and this technique has been around for quite some time. Nandub has been available to interleave and mux AC3 audio with DivX encoded video for quite some time, and no one seems to have cared until now.

  • Wow, isn't horribly old news? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think I've been downloading DivX files with AC-3 audio well over a year now. In fact, I remember all the confusion on the 'net when AC3 audio DVDRips started floating around and people had no clue what audio codec to use.

    Hey, news flash...you can also burn MPEG-2 video files to a CD, just like a DVD!

  • Makes a Great Gag Gift (Score:4, Funny)

    by Winnipenguin ( 603571 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:46PM (#4160961)
    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?

  • Laws anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:46PM (#4160963) Homepage
    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?

  • 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!
  • Here [sonicfoundry.com] is the link. Wait like two minutes so I can get my copy.
  • And for this the RIAA will devise the ultimate copyright solution: The Sharpie Marker.

  • Oh this is going to be fun! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 ) <stonent@stone[ ] ... t ['nt.' in gap]> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @09:52PM (#4160988) Journal
    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.
  • Does anyone know if this works on Macs? At $12 a disc, making test DVD's gets expensive really quickly.
    • SmartCode Pro - Dolby Digital will make WAV-padded AC3 on a Mac, but you have to use Pro Tools to do it. It's really stupid and the program is difficult to use.

      What I do is run Soft Encode 5.1 Dolby Digital from Sonic Foundry under Virtual PC 5.0.4 (Win 98 SE) and make discs that way.

      But, I stopped bothering, I must admit, because many AC3 decoders don't understand the format. Instead, I create WAV-padded DTS files using SurCode DTS from Minnetonka. They work everytime!
    • You know, the SuperDrive does handle DVD-RWs just fine.

  • You can do more than that... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ferrocene ( 203243 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:06PM (#4161028) Journal
    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.

    • 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.
    • 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 :)
      • Are you implying that me and my 2 roomates need to have 3 seperate copies of the matrix in order to watch it legally? Ok, put it this way: I made that backup CD for my roomate, it's not mine. I defer ownership to him :)
    • 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! :-)

  • surround sound AUDIO? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw,slashdot&gmail,com> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:15PM (#4161054)
    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.
    • 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?
      • 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.

    • Re:surround sound AUDIO? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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

    • 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.

      Not everyone sits at concerts.

      The first thing I thought about when reading this was setting up a 5 channel dance party. I'm not sure what you'd do for mixers and varispeed decks though. I know a bloke who's done performances on eight speakers, with the audience in the middle, but he had to write his own software for it.
    • 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 ;-)

    • 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.

    • a perfect example [blueman.com] (flash warning).

      S
    • 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!

    • 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.
  • ..encoding into ogg format and burning it.
    Doesn't ogg support multiple channels ?
    What am I missing ?
    • 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.

  • More from http://www.doom9.org (Score:4, Informative)

    by Codeala ( 235477 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:19PM (#4161072)

    http://www.doom9.org [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.

  • Please don't use their new-speak... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:28PM (#4161108) Homepage Journal
    ...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.

  • WAV-padded AC-3 not reliable (Score:5, Informative)

    by yroJJory ( 559141 ) <meNO@SPAMjory.org> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:33PM (#4161127) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.
      • I realize that 4:1 versus 12:1 isn't the issue, although that, coupled with VBR for AC3, makes DTS win out considerably fast for quality.

        The way AC3's codec works, the center channel has priority over all other channels, followed by the left & right. If you add a subwoofer, your surrounds suffer greatly.

        DTS' codec gives equal imporance to all channels, which is why it sounds better.

        Second, we're discussing purely audio-based solutions right now. I understand that DTS-encoded media takes up considerably more space than AC3, but on a CD of music, and especially a DVD, I'm not worried about how much space I've got.

  • A primer on surround - Texas Style! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi@yahoA ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:38PM (#4161146) Journal
    Wendy Carlos was into surround back in 'the day'. Here [wendycarlos.com] 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!

  • Does anyone know an audio player that can play wav files with the "spdif passthrough" some software dvd player have ? It would be interresting to listen to thoses 5.1 files on a sound blaster live without having to buy a CD player with spdif output.
  • I can't take it anymore! When's someone gonna prove all this "enough for the entire Library of Congress" crap, and just give me the friggin' Library of Congress on some kind of rediculously itty-bitty medium?
  • "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.
    • I just bought this Green Laser Pointer at Think Geek. [thinkgeek.com] Now I anxiously await the moment during which I can trump the unenlightened and their pitiful red lasers that can't be seen for nearly 2 miles like my superior green one. Thank you. You may mod me down now ^__^
  • I can't wait for iPod support of AC-3 so that I can go about wearing two pairs of headphones and looking like a total jackass. Oh, wait, I don't need my 'pod for that. Nevermind, move along, nothing to see here.
  • 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?

    • You can put DVD content on a CD, no problem. Just master your 'dvd' and burn it to a CD with a UDF filesystem. Playing it back is another issue.

      Most dvd players can playback VCD and SVCD, the latter having the higher bitrate, and being in MPEG-2. Thing is, the max bitrate of SVCD is about 300KB, in keeping with a 2x CD speed. (VCD have a fixed bitrate of 150 - single speed CD)

      DVD encoded video has a much higher bitrate (variable, but high), and to stream that data off a CD would require at least a 12x CLV drive.

      Most consumer level DVD players are designed to only spin 2x max, and while their decoders could give a crap where the MPEG2 stream comes from, the drive just cant spin a CD fast enough to make it work.
      There are a few exceptions. And there are such animals as XVCD/XSVCD, which are just VCDS/SVCDS with nonstandard (higher) bitrates. Your PC can handle this stuff, most players cant for the simple reason I outlined above.

      Its not a conspiracy. Its a cost thing, theres just no need for a higher-end drive in yer set-top dvd player.

      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.
      • 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 [doom9.org]

        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 [vcdhelp.com]

        Yeesh.

      • 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.

  • Works on many ordinary CD players too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @10:55PM (#4161203) Homepage
    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 :-)

  • "..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

    Yeah, new types of piracy is the 'right' direction, alright. Bet you cant wait to load up yer Gene6 ftps and hop onto irc with yer warez buddies. Too bad it wasnt video too, huh?

  • Burning DVDs is not THAT expensive (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday August 28, 2002 @11:44PM (#4161349) Homepage
    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.
  • This is old stuff. Even the swedish national radio has done this for more than a year. You can find some of their programs in both DTS and DD at this location: 5.1 CD audio samples [www.sr.se]
  • So play the audio off of one drive and the video off another. Would it be hard or impossible to synch the two?
  • 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 [ambisonic.net] 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 [soundfield.com] 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.
  • 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.

    • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close