I have done about 50 conversions, using FairUse, and I am quite comfortable with the tool. It's not too hard, but I am curious about the differences between mp3 and AC3.
Until now, I have been using the mp3 option and liking its reflection on video compression options. Have I been doing overall "lesser" conversions by not using the AC3 option?
I tried a conversion, the choice being AC3 instead of mp3. Video compression values are not quite as good with AC3, which is to be expected, but it appears to retain the bitrate and channels of the original ISO files I have been using.
That discussion seems to indicate that AC3 audio is NOT necessarily better, despite a thousand "oh darn, this is mp3 and not ac3" posts I have read elsewhere.
Which audio format, in a modern multi-speaker world, do you all think is best? Is it better to have what seems to be a more stable mp3 format or "chance it" and go for AC3? I do not mind knowing that my conversions could have been better, for the use of AC3, if indeed that is the case - because I will be able to improve subsequent versions.
Are there any online articles to support whichever view(s) you hold and can you drop some links in?
Well with mp3 you a) lose channels (assuming a 5.1 source) and b) are re-encoding with a lossy encoder. Therefor AC3 will always give better quality audio. However some movies don't need 5.1 sound and the mp3 could be transparent. Who cares about quality loss if you can't hear it?
Really though it comes down to size. In most cases if you keep the AC3 you will need to go for more than 1 CD to get decent video quality.
Could also have 5.1 AAC audio. Better than mp3 at lower bitrates and you can still have 5.1 channels.
The two cd thing... yes... it so happens that those I have tried with AC3 have been two cd size conversions in any case. Also, there is a particular threshold of compression I will not cross and so would use that as a guide, with this new factor in mind. AC3 for me, I reckon, though I am not sure why all of those people were / are so vehemently against it (hence my original post). Thanks.
If you mean the number of releases out there that are one CD with mp3 audio. There are various scene rules as per a movies length, etc. and whether it gets a 1 or a 2 CD release. Nothing to do with whether the ripper has something against AC3 or not.
I'd quote some of those rules, if I did not think it would be incriminating ;)
Look at the link, which is the reason it was included, and you can see that almost all of the people on there seem to prefer mp3 format sound, which was the motivation for my first set of questions and initial enquiry so...
"AC3 for me, I reckon, though I am not sure why all of those people were / are so vehemently against it (hence my original post)."
Added to that, in wikipedia's article about h.264 compression, I read:
Both of the major candidate next-generation DVD rival formats planned for product deployment in 2006 include the H.264/AVC High Profile as a mandatory player feature - specifically:
* The HD DVD format of the DVD Forum
* The Blu-ray Disc format of the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA)
Using FairUse, I was thinking I might have a go at h.264 rips. The one thing that stops me is that I believe they are not currently compatible with either standard or DivX players - which makes them not much good for more than storage for the future.
That said, I would like to future-proof things as much as possible. The other thing is that all h.264 v XviD comparisons I have read are influenced by a lot of opinion (none seem impartial).
AC3 is the audio choice and the new issue, at least for me, is the validity of h.264 and if it's worth it. It seems to be, but not for now.
So, with "H.264/AVC High Profile" looking to be the future - whoever wins the disc war, is there a FairUse type tool - with similar ease of use, that does to the job to your (or anyone else who might be reading) satisfaction?
