## Module: Surround Encoding

Device/Module Wishlist

Original topic on PlanetZ: https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=16676

####

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:53 pm
by phyx
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.

####

Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:07 pm
by blazesboylan
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!

####

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:50 pm
by phyx

> 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.

####

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:25 pm
by blazesboylan

> 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...

####

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:52 pm
by husker

> 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.

####

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:59 pm
by blazesboylan
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! )

####

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:57 pm
by phyx

> 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...

####

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:02 pm
by phyx

> 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..

####

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:13 pm
by husker

> 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!

####

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:08 am
by blazesboylan

> 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!!! )

####

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:40 am
by phyx
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?

####

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:52 am
by at0m
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...

####

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:06 pm
by astroman
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

####

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:41 pm
by blazesboylan
The old Nuendo (1.x) didn't have DTS included, does the latest (3.x) include it?
Vegas does now...

####

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:30 am
by arela
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.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:36 pm
by Koloh
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.

####

Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:32 pm
by organix
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,-

####

Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:10 am
by astroman

> 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

####

Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:11 am
by djmicron

> 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.

####

Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:14 am
by garyb
i think so as well.

####

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:28 am
by massusen
Well, there are cheap ways to get at least Doly Digital encoded in realtime. I have a Nforce2 motherboard with a Soundstorm DSP that encodes DD Live in realtime. Also there are some soundcards - Turtle Beach, Blue Gears, Terratec - on the market that also encodes DD Live. I think Creative has an DTS realtime encoder - pretty neat. Much better soundquality than DD Live.

####

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:08 am
by archaic_electronics
im not buying these explanations at all...
1st off, if licensing fees were "so" outrageous, then DVD players wouldnt be 100 bucks
2nd, these are "pro-audio" cards, and absolutely have enough horsepower to encode and decode surround 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 etc...and, again, if my consumer reciever can up-convert it, so can a pulsar
3rd, regardless of the compression needed to put 6 discrete channels over the SPDIF, if your mixing surround, you do want to hear what other people may hear...i mean, with all this horsepower, you have to goto your buddys house? and use his consumer dvd player? cause, you paid how much for your soundcard?
4th, creamwares coding has always been kinda crappy, im guessing they simply dont know howto code it correctly...(let the flame war begin)
so, regardless of the excuses...(ahem, creamware) step up and send 5.1 over the damn SPDIF allready?
jeremy

####

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:29 am
by garyb
ENCODE is the expensive license. DECODE license is the cheap one, or that's how it was told to me.
the sound storm thing is kinda interesting. that a soundstorm dsp chip could do dolby encoding, shows that a sharc probably can as well. i'm doubting that much could be done with that feature on your realtek builtin sound card on the nforce2 motherboard, however. i don't think the feature is truly integrated in a useable way, or you have a real cheap ac3 encoding box. many studios are likely to just dump their expensive dolby gear to just run thru a cheap motherboard. most likely, even if such a feature were truly useable, it'd be poor quality for professional work.
i could easily be wrong, though....

####

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:33 am
by astroman

> On 2006-03-17 01:08, archaic_electronics wrote:
> ...creamwares coding has always been kinda crappy, im guessing they simply dont know howto code it correctly...(let the flame war begin)...

much appreciated...
noone codes that sh*t by hand today - you buy preprogrammed chips (there are even Sharcs - yes, like those in the ASBs, with up to 4MB of audio codecs on chip)
simplyfied the big boys in chipset making hire a couple of wizzards that do the dirty (part of the) job for a little more than a fistful of $$$, preferably in assembly - then it doesn't even need much horsepower
as GaryB wrote - it's all about encoding
but please leave anything with less quality than DTS where it is
cheers, Tom