BD RB Beta released! - now at version 0.37.08 (April 23rd, 2011)

Cyclic redundancy checks aren't necessarily a good measure of burn quality since a disc with errors can often be played through without them. There are other factors to consider such as jitter which is more relevant, and for that you should consider checking for PI/PO errors. Cyclic redundancy checks can be caused by anything that prevents data (streams) transfers from the source.

 

Nice, I meant no disrespect at all by my comment... I'm glad you see that, I just think this conversation has become quite comical.

 

A thread without a little controversy gets boring but it can also get to a point where the controversy itself becomes the bore. You're welcome for the comedy. LOL

 

Back on topic... I haven't tried BD RB yet, what I want to know is what does this app have to offer? I have not used DVD RB either and I am comfortable in recoding my own BD rips and repacking them. Is it to become a one (two, or three) click approach to backing up your BDs?

Does it calculate video stream size for you based on what other streams are included... and obviously media used.

I noticed tsMuxeR is bundled in the package, it's Blu-ray muxing is questionable; bad CLPI files, wrong m2ts file size information which leads to the ever popular seeking (FF/RW, chapter seek) issue. Also I see Aften is there too, why would this be packaged? Is AC3 @640kb/s or lower the only option, I prefer DTS @1536kb/s... brace yourself... I use DVD9s

Thanks.

 

Well, this method has had a 100% success rate for me. The discs with a CRC error present as detected by DVDInfoPro will at some point skip or freeze during the movie. The discs with a perfect CRC scan will play flawlessly. This has worked for me every, single time. I have tried Verbatim dual layer discs and I actually had a lower success rate as opposed to using the Ritek's. I have found that through trial and error, that the disc is only one of the aspects that need to be considered. Finding the right burner and software play a very important role in having a high success rate with burning DVD+/-DL discs.

BD Rebuilder, like it's predecessor (DVD Rebuilder) allows you to rebuild a Blu-ray and keep as much intact as possible. Jdobbs is the author of BD RB, and is also the author of the FixCLPI application that I have linked to in my threads (this application amends the seeking issues apparent with tsMuxeR). So that being said, you can be confident that BD RB will not multiplex with seeking issues.

Basically what BD RB does, is allow you to re-author the disc and keep either the full disc or a movie only backup, all in a easy to use one step application. Yes, you can select target sizes of DVD5, DVD9 and BD25 (can't wait to start using those babies!). The application will use x264 for the video encoding and Aften for the Dolby Digital (AC3) encoding.

Odin, as you can see from my previous discussion here I am also one for higher quality and I agree that the audio is one area I feel is questionable with this application. I don't see any options to simply extract the lossy core from the lossless track if one desires. Also, I can see it uses Aften to encode but what about decoding? As we know there are many decoders that do not handle the HD audio correctly... For example... Applying dialog normalization (with Dolby), not decoding the surround back channels, sampling at 48kHz/16bit instead of 192kHz(96kHz)/24bit, mixing up channel order (as LPCM tracks use a different mapping order) etc. etc. I am quite comfortable with the control that EAC3to offers. I would like to see further development in this area for this application.

I also would like to make a point here, and this goes for both video and audio. Any good lossy encoder, should be so efficient at its task that you wont know what has been removed. You wont know what is missing because it wont be there. For example, finer video detail will be smoothed over so well that you wont know that it was there to begin with. For audio, subtleties in the audio track will also be removed. So how would you know what you have lost, if it isn't there? The point I am trying to make is that the lossy encoder does not remove what was there and replace it with something horrible, it uses extremely complex algorithms (especially AVC/h264) that are so effective at masking what has been removed that often times you will perceive it as being as good as the original until you compare it directly to the original.

 

Sorry had my Cisco head on there, rather than my PC one.
Internetwork Operating System is IOS, I'd just logged off a router when I made that reply.

 

Windows will detect and report a cyclic redundancy issue and yes any disc that becomes stalled while transferring data will freeze at some point. What a cyclic redundancy test won't catch are errors that will still play through but will stop for short periods or skip and jump frames.

If you want to keep HD audio tracks do it, and if you want to backup to dual layer discs, do that too, but if you want to try and convince others that BD RB is not going to suit them because of that then be certain that you are right. I would bet a months salary that in a blind A/B test that neither you nor Odin can hear any qualitative differences between HD audio and 640 kbs audio even if you both were in possession of $50,000 audio systems. More often than not any real difference comes down to the mix and it is entirely possible that the mix used for AC3 640 kbs is superior to the HD audio track included on the same movie. Again there is no such thing as lossless audio. 100% of recorded audio whether digital or analog is lossy albeit some more than others but lossy just the same.

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM?page=0,0

 

Soph and Ryu, I see that you two are perfectionists, like me. Matters of personal preference are just that: personal preference. I, for one, however, gain a lot from your differences of opinion (who will notice what, etc.). It saves me a lot of VERY technical reading, LOL. I will definitely take what you guys said/experienced and decide what I think will best suit me. I haven't done any Blu Ray rips or encodes just yet. Thanks for the "Cliff Notes."

 

You are of course correct and I don't think that there is anymore that either of us can add to this debate without repeating ourselves. From time to time I have to remind myself that everyone is right in their own minds. Trying to change the believe others by rephrasing the same arguments over and over again is like "pissing into the wind."

 

Sophocles, seriously mate! How many times did I request that we stop this type of conversation?

I said that checking for CRC errors with DVDInfoPro has had a 100% success rate for me. If this application picks up an error, the disc skips and freezes! If it does not, the disc plays perfectly and is 100% duplicatable. No frames are dropped. Nothing is wrong at all. This has worked EVERY, SINGLE TIME. That is all that matters to me. If the disc plays perfectly every time. Why would anything else matter?

Thank you for posting that article. It sure is interesting. During that article, there are many occasions that state that there is a difference to be heard. The degree of difference is simply in the eye (or should I say ear?) of the beholder.

Now, I am sure you know that "transparent" in compression language refers to being identical to the master.

Also, the section that you referenced about the lossless track and lossy track possibly coming from a different master and/or being mixed differently. If you knew anything about these new formats, you would know that is complete garbage. The lossy core is within the HD track and the outer core contains all the information that was removed during the compression process. Both tsMuxeR and EAC3to allow you to extract the lossy core from a HD audio track with no re-encoding whatsoever.

Also, I prefer to keep a more open minded view and understand that it is only one article. I am sure I could easily find another with the opposite view.

Here's one (although centered around CD audio, it is still a point I made earlier which you completely ignored)... http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html

Here's another from the same Website (cnet) saying clearly that the audio quality on Blu-ray is better... http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-13817_7-6462511-2.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx

In regards to trying to convince others that BD RB is not for them... Please! I never implied that even once. My comments made in my previous post are based on nothing but fact. I still have my reservations about how BD RB handles audio decoding. That is why it is called a "beta". I even stated earlier, that at this point in time I backup with lossy audio. I will continue to do this until BD-25's come down in price. However, my preference would be to keep the lossless track (I keep my favourite films on my Home Theater PC's hard drive). BD RB will become even more useful to me when BD-25's come down in price as I will probably look at keeping menus at that time. I wouldn't go explaining the merits of BD RB if I intended to stop others from using it (do you see how silly that sounds?). I know I certainly wouldn't have any Childish motives like that, now please let's stop this.

 

You could have stopped this at anytime, but somehow you expected that I would be the one to do it in a thread I started?

I was only pointing out that a parity outer error will not cause a CRC, although it could still be causing stutter and skips. The lack of CRC doesn't mean the disc is successfully burned it just means that it didn't freeze for long enough to be timed out.

I also never said that there wasn't a difference. I was merely stating that it was a difference that very few if any can distinguish.

It doesn't mean identical it means Perceptually indistinguishable. It's impossible to get an identical result to an original master in a mix-down. The original master contains individual tracks that can be remixed which of course a mix-down and encoded sound track can't. During mixing a lot different factors come into play. Why provide content that is inaudible to the human ear if it is replicated more than once in the content if it is unneeded and might save space? For instance let's say that we have a recording of an excellent guitar performance with the small exception that there is a squeak caused my the players hands sliding over wound strings.

It's possible to reduce or even remove that squeak using a paragraphic equalizer, but by doing so it will also remove all of the harmonic partials that share the sane frequency by the guitar itself which is an extraction of original music content. If it was just a guitar only recording it might become necessary to record it over again even though it was a quality performance. However if there are other instruments or sounds that reproduce that exact same harmonic frequency then it would in effect also replace it, because people can only hear the exact same tone one at a time. It is a guarantee that some of that will be done in every single mix regardless of whether it is HD or AC3. This is the basis of most lossy formats.

Years ago I did numerous A/B tests using a standard cassette tape, and a CD. I recorded directly from the CD to a cassette with DBX (compander, compress/expand),and then as closely as possible synchronized them through a single amplifier and pair of speakers. The difference between a cassette and CD is very audible to anyone that knows what they're looking for, but the untrained ear and even some experienced ears can be easily tricked. Using an equalizer I adjusted the HF and LF for just the cassette and left the CD at a flat response. Every single time the listeners chose the cassette over the CD as being better simply because the added HF and LF sounded better to them, and for a good reason. At lower volumes human hearing has difficulty hearing HF and LF, it sounds imbalanced. That's why some receivers and amps have loudness switches, and almost all of them have tone controls. To the human ear brighter sounds better.

 

Sophocles, it truly is becoming comical. I mention one thing and you feel the need to refute it, ever since I pointed out that I believe dual layer discs are a better choice you have looked for every opportunity to digress. So much so that I am starting to lose track of what is being discussed. I mention my success with testing CRC errors and you also feel the need to say otherwise. Your previous post picked up points that I didn't even direct towards you.

I modified my previous post with some extra information. I really hope you can see my perspective, even for just a minute. I can see that you have vast experience in sound engineering but that does not give reason to ignore the plain logic that I have posted.

I am truly sorry that I ever came here wanting to share my experience. I will leave this thread to you as it seems that is the way you want it.

 

I wasn't trying to refute your CRC test I was suggesting that you might also want to consider including a PI/PO test.

I really do respect your views, but some of them whether right or wrong appeared to me to be veiled attempts at derailing the thread in favor of your preferred methods. I really felt that I needed to get the sound issue out of the way, but I apologize if it appeared that I sometimes went too far, but then so did you.

I would appreciate it if you would be a part of this thread, but keep the focus on BD RB. I know as do you that there are a few good methods of backing up BD and I feel comfortable with them all, but the majority of people will never be comfortable with them, and that's were RB comes into play. Also in time jdobbs will begin to add features that aren't available in other methods and that's why I support it because many Rock concerts won't backup without them. But if it becomes derailed in its early stages these things might never happen. I have it on good authority that he is looking into broadening audio choices which will in time end the debate. BD RB already has choices for single and dual layer disc so the rest is just personal preferences based on what ones goals are.


I'm finished with this debate since there is little else that can be discussed. I have always preferred to make friends in a forum than enemies. I met most of my online buddies in just such a debate and many of us have retained that friendship going into five years. I've been a member here since March 1, 2003 which is probably far longer than most sane people would hang around a forum, but I love technology.:>}

Good luck to your endeavors.

 

Problem I'm at Step 4 where i select my source path & I'm getting this error after i select the BDMV folder.


Illegal source:Selected source is not BD format


This is from my BD that i have ripped to my HD using Anydvd HD.....Thxs

 

To Ryu77 and Sophocles,

I read both of your replies to each other with gladness. I am grateful to your responses to each others viewpoints. I for one, learn a great deal from your expierences and vast depth of knowledge. No where in my reading of Stereophile mag, Absolute sound, HT magazine, do I get the knowledge from both of your views and references.

To both, keep up the good work and posts. I for one get an education from your lively discussion, and wish you would continue your friendly discussion. I appreciate both your views.


Thank you both,


endo

 

LOL! So you want an encore?

Ok, here is another point from that article I can not completely agree with...

When we are talking about using 50GB (original) BD discs, is that really so bad? I mean c'mon, is 3.5GB out of 50GB really that much a waste of space? I will break down the mathematical equation below so it is clearer how the size is calculated.

Linear PCM 6 channel, 48kHz, 16bit...

So that's 48,000 samples per second, with 16 bits per sample.

- 48,000 x 16 = 768,000 bits

- 768,000 bits / 1000 = 768 kilobits.

- 768 kilobits x 6 channels = 4,608kbs.

So with a 1 hour 45 min movie, the audio bitrate of 4,608kbs would only occupy about 3.5GB for the audio track. However, on the flip side I would rather it include a Dolby TrueHD track or a DTS HD MA track as that allows up to 8 channel, 192kHz, 24bit audio and at about the same file size (often even less).




I also just finished a test recode. I will copy and paste what I posted on the Doom9 website for reference, in case anyone is interested in commenting on it or has had similar experiences, or even better knows a solution to the bugs I found.


"I am not sure what has already been mentioned yet (please excuse me for not having the time to read back 26 pages) but I just completed a test recode.

My target was to BD-25 as I wanted to test the prospect of burning to Blu-ray discs in the future.

My test backup was The Dark Knight.

- First bug: I selected the TrueHD track and also the regular Dolby Digital track to keep. I also ticked the box "Do not reencode AC3". However, the end result was that I got two Dolby Digital tracks at 640kbs. Is there a way to keep the TrueHD track?

- Second bug: All the chapters were off by a gradually larger amount, and because of this BD RB seems to have dropped some. There were 40 chapter available in the original and only 31 available after the re-authoring.


Otherwise, thank you for what looks to be a very promising application. "

 

I think we're killing the poor man. LOL

I think that I've become worn out on the debate. I can usually tell because my posts get progressively more complicated.

I agree with you on that one. Standard 25 Gb discs have more than enough room for both video and large uncompressed tracks. A small note for your calculations: modern LPCM is recorded at 24bit/96KHz. I have a portable field recorder that will almost fit in my pocket that will record 24bit/96khz on 4 tracks. It also has onboard xy mic configuration, and two XLR inputs with phantom power.

 

Oh yes... I mistakenly considered the checkbox that stated "Do not reencode AC3" as meaning it will not re-encode any of the Dolby tracks at all (including TrueHD). As I just amended on the Doom9 thread, I think the I can not read Fairy was messing with me. Oh well, at least the chapter bug I posted was actually a bug and not a feature request wrapped up in a bug report!

Yes, I am aware... However, I am still seeing most Blu-ray discs that contain a multi-channel PCM track using 48/16 rather than 96/24. :-(

Sounds like a cool little device you have there.

Just a side note, I just demuxed the Dolby TrueHD track from The Dark Knight for curiosity and it is only 2.27GB (including AC3 core). I might have to do another recode of this with a DVD-9 target and see how the video looks at the end. ;-)

 

@Ryu77, your TrueHD track for TDK will create an enourmous amount of m2ts overhead, more than regular AC3 or DTS creates for a DVD9... it may notbe worth it. Just giving you a heads up.

 

It's still 6% regardless...

8,152MB x 0.94 = 7,662MB usable media space (minus the 6% headers).

7,662MB - 2,324MB (TrueHD track) = 5,338MB left for video.

The movie is 2h 32min & 13sec. That leaves 4,898kbs available for video. Probably best to round it down to 4,850kbs. Hmmm... Probably not quite enough bitrate for the quality I like.

I can't find a way to multiplex TrueHD anyway. Sonic Scenarist wont accept it either. :-(