BD-A 24/192 5.1 DD-TRUEHD / DTS-HD MASTER AUDIO

[applewine]

Hi,

 

Can I buy a BD-AUDIO disc that is 24/192/5.1 today? I don't care if it is DD-TRUEHD or DTS-HD MASTER AUDIO.

 

I think 24/192/5.1 should be the BD-A standard with option of which of the two codecs to go with not including LPCM. The receivers support both of the above mentioned codecs that support 24/192/5.1.

 

A limited collection of certain music in this format would be nice. I don't mind listening to mp3's for a general collection, but I think high quality audio has a place for a portion of a persons home library.

 

I remember the DVD-AUDIO being limited to 96 sample in surround mode and only able to do 192 sample in stereo. So, now blue ray just ups that from stereo to surround and I'd like to check this out. Technically it looks like BD-A would be much easier for home users meet the requirements than DVD-A was.

 

[avi]

http://www.2l.no/

 

Album title- DIVERTIMENTI

Øyvind Gimse, conductor Performer - TrondheimSolistene

Catalogue # - 2L-050-SABD

EAN13 - 7041888512820

ISRC-code - NOMPP0802010-110

 

Disc 1 Hybrid SACD

MCH 5.1 DSD Stereo DSD

 

Disc 2 Pure Audio Blu-ray

DTS HD MA 192kHz/24bit 5.1

Dolby True HD 192kHz/24bit 5.1

LPCM 192kHz/24bit 5.1

LPCM 192kHz/24bit STEREO

 

Region: ALL - worldwide

Release date May 2008

Recording date November 2007

Location Selbu Church, Norway

Original source DXD (352.8kHz/24bit)

 

[pacwin]

Blu ray audio has hardly taken the audio listening world by storm. Only a couple of companies release blu ray audio regularly i.e. Naxos and 2L both issuing classical music. 2L release their product on SACD (recorded in DXD) and dual disc (Blu-Ray/SACD combos). In most cases these are 5.1 DTS HD MA 24/192 or 7.1 DTS MA HD 24/96 as well as 2.0 LPCM and more recently FLAC and MP3 versions if there is room on the disc. Naxos are limited to 24/88.2 recording sources and typically package as 24/96 DTS HD MA 5.1 The Dolby codec is typically not used and has declining market share since its optional.2L supports the "Pure Audio Blu-ray" standard which allows format switching using the colour coded keys on a blu ray remote

 

You will find that most multichannel music releases are done on SACD in 5.1 and not in blu-ray, again invariably classical music and a literal handful of jazz. Its been this way for a decade. There is probably 4-500 multichannel productions a year. Blu ray audio would be les than 5% of that. There is no sonic advantage of a lossless codec like DTS-HD over LPCM. DVD-A is all but a lifeless corpse.

 

Many current consumer level blu ray players also playback SACD's, although they typically need the higher end receivers to take full advantage of the DSD format, lower end receivers may reduce bit depth and sample rate to little better than redbook albeit in surround.

 

Bluray was publicly released in 2006. It has not by any stretch supplanted other spinning disc formats especially not audio. And really its hardly dented the DVD markt and in most cases this isre released material anyway.

 

Given that this is a computer audio website its curious you are interested in spinning disks. We are all trying to eliminate them in the playback chain, blu-ray included. Software players can digest multichannel sources quite happily. Multicahnnel audio does nt need to be carried on blu-ray disks and neither do they need to be in a lossless codec like DTS-HD-MA. FLac is just as good.

 

Blu-ray could have been successful as a carrier for say all of Mozart's symphonies taking advantage of the extended play time on BR.

 

If you want to experiment get the 2L sampler combo disc set.

 

 

 

[wappinghigh]

I hear ya Applewine. I hear ya. Your right. Surround hi rez is definitely a crazy hobby, with an even a more bizarre history...

 

Lurking around this site are a couple of surround freaks trying to pull this great art form back into the 21C.

 

tedB, bleedink to name a few.

 

Pacwin is right. It's SACD for surround Audio. And old DVD-A bought at exorbitant ebay prices I am afraid. Blu Ray has not taken off..just live concerts...that's about it. I wouldn't bother...forget blu ray for this.

 

Basically 5.1 Flac seems the way to go in the future. Trouble is very few websites offer it for (legal) downlaod

 

If you are into surround:

 

I suggest you follow the SACD rip thread

The DVD-A convert to flac thread

And search whatever bleed and ted have to say

And visit quadraphonicquad.com

And follow what they are up to on itrax.com

 

Oh..and tell me if you find a fantastic multichannel DAC/streamer

 

Cheers

 

Wap

 

 

[applewine]

Does FLAC support 192/24/5.1? So far I have seen flac limited in the same way that DVD-A was in that it can only do 192 sample in stereo and 96 sample in 5.1.

 

Additionally, could an iMac computer with an optical out output this to the receiver? I was reading that the only hdmi would support this level of audio resolution and not SPIDF. I can't find the page now, but it said that hdmi had to be used and not SPDIF.

 

I noticed the FLAC files on the mShutle Blue Ray Pure Audio discs are not 192/24/5.1 .

 

I'd like to have the option of using a computer in the future. But, I also see benefits to a dedicated system for adoption for cost and simplicity for many people who might not have all the right hardware.

 

If my computer can output this I'd like to try it if you guys have any good music, especially 192/24/5.1 FLAC.

 

Thanks

 

[bleedink]

Although the 24/192 to 8 channels is part of the spec of HDMI and BluRay I don't believe that most consumer audio equipment will support it. Most playback equipement I have seen (I don't pretend to be an authority so I may be totally wrong here) will only support mc up to 24/96 however. So the possibility exists and apparently there are even recordings that make use of it. However, for playback I am not exactly sure what you could use. The Oppo even tops out at 24/96 for MC if Im not mistaken and most of these formats that would take advantage of the extra bandwidth would still be limited by the receiver to which it is bitstreaming or passing LPCM. These tend to top out at 2ch 24/192. I think this is true of most popular OS's as well--again could very well be wrong as someone has to work on masters for surround presumably in 24/192...An interesting aside: was reading up on the DVD-A standard recently and though it includes 24/96 for 5.1 it's also true that the standard allows differing resolutions for different speakers! In other words, your towers might be rocking 24/96 but your surrounds might be spunking out at 24/48 to save space. I just read this PDF that Mishka suggested on dolbys site that included the info as I was reading up on proper 5.1 set up with differing standards (SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray) without compromising too much on either standard. Anyway, I probably didn't really answer your question but my understanding is that for now most receivers and transports are no able to support surround at those settings currently. And even if something like the Oppo did in fact support that, it would likely need to be bitstreamed over HDMI (if you want those sound formats) or at least read by the receiver as LPCM and most receivers just don't go there yet. 24/192 is going to be a stereo thing until newer equipment comes out that will force us to buy that 'one more thing' to play it. I'm sure flac can support it, I believe it goes to 32/384 or whatever that standard is. It also retains whatever encoding you use...for example flac can contain dts, dts-ma, dts-hd ma, ect. which can be bitstreamed to whatever can decode it. More friendly Upnp and DLNA thingamabobs like Playback Media Server will let you stream DTS-HD MSTR files in flac to like an Oppo and will keep the resultant stream in the flac. It's up to the Oppo or your DAC/AVR to decode it. And no bluray audio has yet to take the world by storm, but 2011 saw the first commercial releases of this kind of material. If the music industry does NOT do away with discs, I'd say that blu ray has about the best shot at music format very soon. At the end of 2012 there will be no CDs from the labels.

 

[Miska]

Does FLAC support 192/24/5.1?

 

FLAC can go up to 384/32/7.1.

 

 

[bleedink]

Is there anything out there that can play it?

 

[Miska]

Is there anything out there that can play it?

 

In terms of hardware? Aside from custom hardware which is fairly easy but expensive... Options are to synchronize four units of stereo 384/32 capable devices like M2Tech Young or using something like http://www.digitalaudio.dk/page1213.aspx

 

 

[pm]

I just resold my M.C. set because of it being obsolete: A/V receiver HDMIless and reader linked via analog cables (SA-CD). I, being somewhat old (first Cd bought in '83...), now have several hundreds of such, as well as some DVD-A and quite a few SA-CD. Them being to my ears the very best of the lot. I intended to get a low end set SA-CD capable (namely Sony BDV-E380) but I read it does not decode 192/24. I wanted this set for its disc capabilities; as well as network connection. So that I could enjoy DTS HD MA 5.1 192/24 downloads (once I am fiber connected because of speed/time). Searching through internet I realise that very few (high end) receivers offer this 192/24 feature. Therefore my question: is it wise to buy now this Sony set (or alike) and live with its limitations, waiting for better times. Or must I postpone because of the industry being on the verge of switching to this "new standard" ?

Thanks for your advice, and apologies for my english (french mothertongue).

 

[applewine]

The standard not to0 expensive home receiver supports 24/192/5.1 . The more expensive 7.1 systems still support 24/192 I believe, however I'm happy with just 5.1 as this is the limit of blu-ray audio and I don't want that many speakers. I think blu-ray audio best solution since it is a stand-alone solution that doesn't require people to figure out what hardware they need or spend a lot to get 24/192/5.1. But, I could imagine devices like a boxee (IF) it could play 24/192/5.1 flac files taking the place of a computer and just hooking that up to a receiver. That would be a good solution to get wide support. The biggest thing is to pick a standard and get people to start recording it and distributing it and a simple low cost solution for people to play it back with hardware that doesn't require them to investigate the hardware requirements. That is how you would get enough content out there and get it widely adopted. You then need to market it. Somebody who is motivated could probably do this, but you would need to work with artists and people with a recording studio who can do this to get it to happen.

 

[bleedink]

Hmmm...far as I knew until recently the upper ceiling of most AVRs and most playback hardware is still 24/192 but only in 2 channels...

 

[Miska]

far as I knew until recently the upper ceiling of most AVRs and most playback hardware is still 24/192 but only in 2 channels

 

Over HDMI, 192/24 with 7.1 channels works just fine (I'm playing through such on Linux at the moment). Same goes for DSD 5.1 channels.

HDMI technical limits are 768/24 PCM or 192k x64 DSD with 7.1 channels. (352.8, 384 and 705.6 are not supported at the moment)

 

And naturally 8 channels 192/24 has been working for ages over PCI with analog outputs. 16 channels is not a problem either. These days it works over USB too.

 

Dolby TrueHD seems to be limited to 5.1 channels at 192k:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/professional/technology/home-theater/dolby-truehd.html

According to DTS' whitepaper, DTS-HD MA is limited to 2.0 at 192k, even though some sources list 5.1 (and 2L seems to be selling Blu-rays with 192k 5.1 channels so it must work).

Blu-ray supports LPCM up to 5.1 channels 192/24.

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Do you need 5.1 or more for audio? In a film, with explosions, spacemen, and Rambo-like idiots running all over the place may be it is useful. But even then I find the sound moving ten feet across my room when the character producing it moves only two feet across my TV screen to be rather peculiar, to say the least.

 

With audo you get performers stood more or less at front. If they need amplification that is usually at the front too. They don't generally run around the hall, field, stadium or wherever they are.

 

Reverberations and so on? You get them in a regular room anyway, different perhaps from those in a theatre, but there all the same.

 

[Miska]

Do you need 5.1 or more for audio?

 

Yes, you should try out many of the 5.1/5.0 SACDs out there. It reproduces the venue acoustics really well.

 

You should also try the 5.1 channel 2L recordings, they also offer 5.1 channel 96/24 FLAC downloads for most of their recordings (you can download few such test tracks for free). In hese, the orchestra is usually laid out in roughly 180 - 270 degree arc around the listener. So you can hear the performance from conductor's point of view. Or the very front row of a concert. These recordings seem to be done using 8 channels in parallel. Two for the ordinary stereo, 5 for the surround and one for the bass using different type of mic.

 

Last time when I was listening Mahler's 6th live, percussions were _behind_ me while rest of the orchestra were naturally front of me.

 

From rock side, progressive/space-rock, for example Pink Floyd has been traditionally mixed and performed quad channel in live, with many of the sounds rotating around the audience.

 

 

[bleedink]

Technically people don't run from side to side to produce stereo effects either so to say that stereo somehow more faithfully reproduces a live experience is only true if that is what the producer intends. Most recordings these days are psychic soundscapes, certainly not always an attempt to replicate the 'real' world. Unless it is a classical or jazz recording making it realistic is probably the last thing anyone in the studio is thinking about these days. I'd like to see the guys with the crazy synth pans running back and forth in front of a mic! Recorded music is anything but realistic even in the best cases. I also don't know many people that speak with a reverb but there it is even in the most 'realistic' of recordings.

 

[applewine]

I'm not sure because this is so new, but I think 5.1 would have advantages without Bering overly a burdon or gimmick. I think you could at least use it to put a different instrument on each channel for better seperation. I'd like to hear contemporary and classic like a piano with violin, but not so much an orchestra. I like the up close isolated instrument sound, not the large chamber effect.

 

[bleedink]

Stereo only recently has been defined as a two speaker endeavor. Originally it expressed the dimensionality of the sound experience and how much it immersed the listener. It has since been corrupted to mean a two channel affair. Actually stereo in the strictest sense can be many speakers. It's about the ability to immerse the listener, not the number of speakers and such. I think surround is somewhat of a misnomer-immersive sound might be a more definitive definition of multichannel audio. Without many of the tools we use to produce music like dynamic compression and the like is hardly realism and does not replicate the experience of real life. Many sounds would never be heard if they were not artificially inflated in the studio. I think this notion of a realistic recording being the band in front of you is perhaps unrealistic itself. A more realistic approach would be perhaps a speaker for each instrument placed in the room wherever they happened to be standing when they recorded the piece! I think there is something to be said for the artificiality of the recorded experience that cannot be replicated in real life. Pieces from the Flaming Lips for example make perfect sense. They do not have a counterpart in 'reality' but they are an experiment on par with SGT Pepper, which in its time was also unable to be replicated 'live' and hence no more touring for the Beatles.

 

[pm]

being of Pink Floyd's generation (and even prior... sob !) I can recall multichannel experiments; such as quadro (4 tracks out of a specially shaped "diamond" on a 33rpm like disc)... Which tends to prove the need has been actual for quite a time. Since the '80S the CD gives the opportunity (apart from the long discussed "quality" between analog or digital recording...) to benefit easily from this multichannel environment. And when you have discovered classical "performances" out of a SACD, there is no turning back ! Furthermore, those discs being hybrid, you could compare 2.0 and 5.1. ! The multichannel is far more closer to the acoustical character of the place (cathedral,...) than stereo. What one expects is the higher sampling the better quality when playback. I guess that for rock/pop present standards trying to locate precisely a sound according to the place its emitter occupies in the band is not so important; sot that your idea of a channel dedicated to each individual makes sense. Wheras in a symphonic orchestra its position be it in widht or DEPTH is primary. Therefore, the more channels you play the more acute is the impression. The limit being... how many transducers your wife is likely to endure..

 

[bleedink]

BTW my apologies for thinking that most AVRs top off at 2 channel 24/192. This is NOT the case. I was thinking of playback software I guess and my neurons are kinda shot anyway! lol...My Yammie fully supports up to 8 channels 24/192 as many of you said. My sincere apologies for my misinformation. That said still a bit unclear as to what software is going to allow for those kind of bit rates. I've yet to find anything over 24/96 in multiple channels. Would love to hear if there is something more to be gained in the doubling of these rates.

 

[Miska]

That said still a bit unclear as to what software is going to allow for those kind of bit rates. I've yet to find anything over 24/96 in multiple channels.

 

At least HQPlayer supports up to 8 channels at max 768/32 or 6 channels at 6144/1. PCM with distance (delay) and level adjustments, and later on also DSD with the same.

 

If someone needs more channels or samplerates, I can easily add more.

 

I have bunch of 5.1 channel 96/24 FLACs that I play upsampled to 192/32 5.1 channels.

 

 

[bleedink]

That's more like it! We tell the studios what we want and they deliver it! Wait, I woke up!

 

[Miska]

That's more like it! We tell the studios what we want and they deliver it! Wait, I woke up!

 

Well, it's always a chicken-egg problem. If nobody starts it, it won't get anywhere.

 

But as you may know, I run everything through upsampling/oversampling, digital room correction, etc. Higher output rates and resolutions are good target for upsampling.

 

For example many DACs that upsample to 192/24 or 384/32 don't even accept data in at those rates. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't benefit of DAC chips capable of receiving data at those rates.