PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I would like to take the outs from the surround mixer and encode them to the optical outs right to my reciever.

I feel this is an essential module, I hate using my LunaII breakout box to send surround to my reciever.

Cool idea, but unfortunately the encoding algorithms are all patented and require non-trivial licensing fees...

You could always assemble 3 cards and use the 3 x S/PDIF outs!

On 2005-08-23 23:07, blazesboylan wrote:
Cool idea, but unfortunately the encoding algorithms are all patented and require non-trivial licensing fees...

You could always assemble 3 cards and use the 3 x S/PDIF outs!

I didn't even think of the licensing... There must be some protocol that would be free or logo-ware.

3x optical wouldn't work on any receiver i have seen... it has to be a compatible encoding, not stereo.

On 2005-08-24 13:50, phyx wrote:
3x optical wouldn't work on any receiver i have seen... it has to be a compatible encoding, not stereo.

*pulls head out of derriere* Duh! You're right, of course.

You are right, too, that there are many encoding algorithms -- however most consumer products I've heard of use the 2 biggies (Dolby Digital and Sony DTS) to decode.

I don't know much about the film or theatre worlds though... Maybe they have products for sale that use patent-free / royalty-free formats?!?

Certainly an interesting area to explore...

On 2005-08-23 19:53, phyx wrote:
I would like to take the outs from the surround mixer and encode them to the optical outs right to my reciever.

I feel this is an essential module, I hate using my LunaII breakout box to send surround to my reciever.

The question is why do you hate using the Luna? DolbyD and DTS are both heavily compressed, so even the extra D/A A/D is probably going to sound better than the encoding.

Because you want to hear what the end user of your recording is going to hear.

Right?

(Maybe I'm missing something... Wouldn't be the first time! )

On 2005-08-24 20:52, husker wrote:

The question is why do you hate using the Luna? DolbyD and DTS are both heavily compressed, so even the extra D/A A/D is probably going to sound better than the encoding.

Do you really think it sounds better?

I like using my luna breakout box for my external effects integration into SFP as well as ins for my synths.... it would be nice to not have to patch cables all the time...

On 2005-08-24 20:59, blazesboylan wrote:
Because you want to hear what the end user of your recording is going to hear.

Right?

Yeah thats a part of it too, but I always make a cd/dvd and listen to it at friends houses for that..

On 2005-08-25 16:57, phyx wrote:

On 2005-08-24 20:52, husker wrote:

The question is why do you hate using the Luna? DolbyD and DTS are both heavily compressed, so even the extra D/A A/D is probably going to sound better than the encoding.

Do you really think it sounds better?

I like using my luna breakout box for my external effects integration into SFP as well as ins for my synths.... it would be nice to not have to patch cables all the time...

well it *should* sound better, given that a Dolby Digital stream is max 640Kbps, shared across 5.1 channels - leaves about 128Kbps per channel - so quality wise roughly equiv. to a 256Kbps MP3. DTS is a bit better, but not much.

p.s. It would be cool to have AC3 stream out of scope...but I don't think it will happen!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: husker on 2005-08-25 18:15 ]</font>

On 2005-08-25 17:02, phyx wrote:

On 2005-08-24 20:59, blazesboylan wrote:
Because you want to hear what the end user of your recording is going to hear.

Right?

Yeah thats a part of it too, but I always make a cd/dvd and listen to it at friends houses for that..

You could... But if you've ever made a DVD that's say an hour long, you know that it takes about 8 hours for a reasonable machine to render it... It's pretty time-consuming, at least when you're dealing with audio-for-video.

To me, the whole "listen to it on other people's systems" approach only works for music, not for video.

But maybe I'm doing something wrong...? (I certainly hope so!!! )

What about somehow sending the surround mixer outs to the ADAT module and that into the reciever? I know it's two different protocols and it wont work as is... but is there a way?

Some how make the Digital module multichannel?

Biggest problem for CW, as they once reported (searching this forum will help) was the licencing fees. It would be a multiple of the price of the card afaik...

afaik that fee is what makes Nuendo so much more expensive than Cubase.
Don't forget the stuff is patented - even if someone writes a piece of code entirely based on his or her own experiences, this would still violate the patent, ouch...

cheers, Tom

The old Nuendo (1.x) didn't have DTS included, does the latest (3.x) include it?

Vegas does now...

hi
no, encoders not included in Nuendo,
Steinberg encoders are $800 + each.

Anyway, this is not easy made.
Monitoring a 5.1 mix is just a matter of speakers, but the end result is hidden!

Guess the pro's have some boxes for
monitoring before/after encoding.

by the way dts is about 750kbps or 1500kbps for DVD and 1200kbps for cd (surcode that is)
..while Steinberg Dolby encoder is from 64 - 640 kbps.

I had the same probleme today, so I used the searchfunction and found this thread.

The spdif-destination's got a left and a right in, so I can only use it for stereo signals. But i've found an Input I don't understand, and I haven't found something about it in the manual. What is it?



Does somebody know what it is?

I would like a Dolby 5.1 Encoder for Pulsar, too because I don't have a breakoutbox. Creamware should buy a license for a protocol I think.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Koloh on 2006-01-17 19:37 ]</font>

The biggest problems on encoding surround formats on scope are not any fees. Licence fees can be paid.

The most biggest problem is, that it's absolutely impossible to encode 5.1 surround format in realtime with the power of the sharc dsp processors.

Not even Nuendo with the DTS-Encoder is capable to render the audio in realtime.

There are appliances from Dolby, which are capable to encode surround in realtime. But, such appliances starts at about $5000,-

On 2006-03-02 14:32, organix wrote:
...The most biggest problem is, that it's absolutely impossible to encode 5.1 surround format in realtime with the power of the sharc dsp processors. ...

I trust your signature, so you certainly know much more about that stuff than me.

Could it be the architecture simply doesn't fit the encoding process due to (probably) much longer buffers (for more efficient data compression), compared to what the Sharcs usually use for 'realtime' processing ?

it's hard to believe (for me) that a crap like Doly Digital needs much power at all.
I admittedly dunno about their latest and greatest, just the 'regular' Dolby Digital versus DTS 5.1 movie stuff.
As a consumer I stick with the latter and if it's not available I switch to stereo.

curious, Tom

On 2006-03-02 14:32, organix wrote:
The biggest problems on encoding surround formats on scope are not any fees. Licence fees can be paid.

The most biggest problem is, that it's absolutely impossible to encode 5.1 surround format in realtime with the power of the sharc dsp processors.

Not even Nuendo with the DTS-Encoder is capable to render the audio in realtime.

There are appliances from Dolby, which are capable to encode surround in realtime. But, such appliances starts at about $5000,-

it's absolutely possible.

i think so as well.