Re-encoding Audio before Shrinking ?
 

As we know the Menue-keeping apps. like ShrinkDVD or DVDrebuilder cant lower audio filesizes.

Theres a nice Workout available if also smaller Audio tracks are wanted to get more quality on the Video compunt in relation:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84887

Thanx, Inc.

This will also help with my question here.

from the guide posted item 4:
"....Select all audio tracks you have created with BeSweet...."

using besweet don't loose general volume with 2ch AC3 like in 5.1 AC3 :?:
in the end of that thread still don't have final solution for this volume problem and they are using cooledit or seamless audio editors doing double audio conversions..it's not a good choice. have some others threads in doom9 audio forum with better solutions that you can apply in this situations!
in the end you got some hundreds Mbs for the video but loose great audio quality,don't seems a good choice digitall.doc.
Kdvd is for good results in audio and video, cos the kvcd notch matrix do the hard job and give extra compression without losses giving space to use good audio tracks. :)

Yep, but you could use Softencode if you want to keep 100% Quality AC3s

As Inc already answered, the option is using SoftEncode. It means re-encoding also, but the quality (at a encoding-speed cost) is really good. Even more when I usually re-encode original english 5.1ch to 2.0ch, just for practising english, so quality is not my main goal in this audio stream. In spanish audio stream I keep original, or change from 448 kbps to 384 kbps, 5.1ch.
I find this method the easiest one. When I have the chance to try it, I will.

SoftEncode give little losses too but less than besweet.
and remember that 448/6(channels) give ~75Kbps for each channel and 384/6 give 64Kbps, you will loose quality here too.
as your target is for practising english, your arguments are very cool!
:)

Yep, I know.
And I remember reading at a D9 thread that they didn't come to an agreement about if 384kbps was enough for 5.1ch, or better go to 448kbps. Somebody argumented that many films have their audio already at 384kbps, and are supposed to be alright... yes, I know, being commercialized this way (at 384) doesn't mean that it's OK. But I'm getting older, my neighbours doesn't like my TV set too loud,... will I really notice the difference? :lol: :lol: :wink:
Thanx for the feedback.

it's right, 384kbps for 5.1 is very cool but remember that they use the audio from source to encode the dvd as 384kbps and not from 448 to 384....this is really different. and the volume if converted for more or less bitrate nothing have to do with the volume but in quality...the volume will always down a little.
about your ears i can't trust cos if you don't listen so good you'll never will encode as 5.1, no matter what bitrate used...good taste for sound is for who have good ears...is your case! :wink:

and forget the neighbours, do like me:
adjust the volume so loud than you never will listen what they are talking!
:lol:

Dolby Inc recommand to use 64 Kbp/s min per channel. So let say that under 384 for a 5.1 stream, you are not in the official Dolby spec.

I didn´t understand it: six channels at 64 kbit/s each one -> 6 x 64 = 384 Kbit/s, all right ? Just curiosity ...

Cheers,