Could we see frequency of Atmos increased to 96k someday?

[KG10]

Currently if you want to use higher than 48k then you need to drop down to 7.1.

 

[KG10]

Of course its debatable whether the human ear can actually hear the difference between the two frequency's and it would require a firmware on existing receivers provided the hardware can run it.

 

[jimfisheye]

It's lossless 24 bit audio and 12 or more discrete channels of it. We're already at a solid level of literally nothing* can be made to sound better. So there's that.

96k is supported. It's just not being used mainstream.
I know some AVRs will (by default/choice/other) upsample to avoid the low pass filters at lower rates*. 96k would double the data rate and file size and Atmos music files are carrying 12 or more channels of mlp compressed audio to begin with.

The debate is weather you are hearing anything above the normally accepted range of hearing vs just hearing it free of artifacts from the low pass eq filter needed at SD rates. You can hear bad eq even with poor hearing. The low pass starts cutting into the audio band at the top and dulls it. The idea behind 96k was to use a wide margin between the audio and the sample rate to avoid needing the eq. We have to filter the sample rate out when it's right at the top of the audio range, FYI. Any content above the audio band was considered an artifact. Again, assuming one doesn't believe in perception above the audio band. But that can be debated!

Most modern DACs have pretty good low pass eq even at 44.1k or 48k
Upsampling to 96k first really does work and really is transparent itself.
The data rate for all the devices and the bluray audio would double.
That's my guess. And streaming is already a very stepped on version of 48k. Need to get that up to speed first. More people would hear the results of that.

* Debatable bits

 

[LuvMyQuad]

96k is supported. It's just not being used mainstream.
I

For Atmos? I thought the limit was 48kHz

 

[sjcorne]

The Dolby Atmos Renderer can monitor in 96k, but the consumer encoding (TrueHD) is currently limited to 48k.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Quite a few modern pre/pros through proprietary filtering upsample 48k to 96k but as far as the human ear actually perceiving the minute difference is negligible!

 

[MidiMagic]

And if they change it, we will have yet another incompatibility in surround.

Incompatibilities are the thing I hate most in audio.

The only time I was really happy with surround sound was when there was a SINGLE STANDARD. It happened twice:

- Regular Matrix (phono), from 1969 to 1971
- Dolby Surround, from 1982 to about 2000

The phonograph record was essentially the same standard from 1891 to now, with a few temporary incompatible glitches (vertical recording, multiple speeds (not a problem now), and CD-4).

 

[jimfisheye]

We've had a single lossless standard for digital audio this whole time: PCM. Commonly delivered via .wav file. Supports multichannel up to at least 256 channels. (The official lossless compression wavpack might top out at 256 channels. I think raw wav can be made to hold 65,000 channels if someone wanted.) Any standard PCM DAC plays this.

Some private companies like DTS and Dolby have created proprietary encoding schemes to restrict use of their audio by encoding the PCM audio. That's not really a format though! The format is still PCM audio. It's just been encoded to keep private.

Sony tried to create an actual different format: DSD. The very same capability as PCM but the "different digital language" would act as copy protection.

12 or 16 channel surround mixes are still standard wav audio at 48k or 96k. One could think of Dolby's proprietary encoding as a copyright scheme to restrict use as an aside.

 

[MidiMagic]

Can the same player play all of those variations?
Can the same sound system reproduce all of them?

If not, they are not compatible.

 

[jimfisheye]

Can the same player play all of those variations?
Can the same sound system reproduce all of them?

If not, they are not compatible.

Yes, yes, & agree.
(Weather or not that was a response to my post.)

 

[barfle]

And if they change it, we will have yet another incompatibility in surround.

Incompatibilities are the thing I hate most in audio.

The only time I was really happy with surround sound was when there was a SINGLE STANDARD. It happened twice:

- Regular Matrix (phono), from 1969 to 1971
- Dolby Surround, from 1982 to about 2000

The phonograph record was essentially the same standard from 1891 to now, with a few temporary incompatible glitches (vertical recording, multiple speeds (not a problem now), and CD-4).

Edison Cylinders and discs were not compatible, so the problem has been around for over a century. My system won’t play piano rolls or Elcassettes, or, just to be inclusive, MIDI files.

I pretty much gave up on mag tape, so R-R, cassette, 4-track are formats I won’t bother with any more.

I believe everyone who comes up with a new format believes that it is an improvement over the existing state of the art. Sometimes they try to be compatible with earlier formats (quad LPs, Atmos), but that’s not necessarily possible.

I no longer feel that I have to be able to play every format that’s ever been released (although I do have a Motorola EVR player, just ‘cause it was such a cool technology). I once had a Nytone 35mm slide scanner as well. Very cool tech, but obsolete as hell.

Where is the limit? Clearly, each of us has to set their own standards as to what we want to play, and what gear to play it we can afford. The state of the art will undoubtedly advance as time goes on, although I’m once again starting to doubt if we will be able to appreciate any differences the changes make to our experiences.

 

[jimfisheye]

I think it's pretty clear what the complaint is. Some new format coming along with some new ability and new bit of hardware is always well and good. Finding ways to cripple an existing format with new copy protection schemes or make it require a software handshake with some codes programmed into a new chip on the circuit board to "unlock" it are what the complaints are about. ie Software spoofing.

 

[mandrix]

The other thing is room eq programs limit to 48kHz. I use Dirac Live so apparently that's the case with it. Honestly the improvements in room eq far outweight whether or not 96K would sound better. I mean I can turn the processing off If I want, but sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[KG10]

The other thing is room eq programs limit to 48kHz. I use Dirac Live so apparently that's the case with it. Honestly the improvements in room eq far outweight whether or not 96K would sound better. I mean I can turn the processing off If I want, but sort of defeats the purpose.

Still I think the higher frequency could benefit for people that who to downmix to 5.1 or stereo

 

[jimfisheye]

I'd also agree strongly that needed room correction eq FAR outweighs any dulling from poor low pass eq needed for SD sample rates.

I DO say things like treat your room and calibrate your stuff before reaching for "room correction" eq. But in the order of things affecting or altering the sound, I'd still put concern over SD sample rates dead last. Especially considering that you can upsample to work around your converters if you have something that old or dodgy. Even this is mostly a moot point with modern DACs. (But there are still Amazon and Worst Purchase products to avoid.)

What room correction plugin or app is restricting to 48k?
Something older perhaps? That's unexpected.

There were some early sample rate conversion algorithms (around the turn of the century) that mangled the audio so bad it had to be heard to be believed. That's why the stubborn practice of DA (old sample rate) -> analog -> AD (new sample rate) was the only accepted method around then. This really has changed and especially upsampling is truly transparent now. You will preserve the original audio fully and be able to use your DAC at HD and free of the low pass eq filters.

None of this would have any effect on downmixing anything. Downmixing higher multichannel to 5.1 or 5.1 to stereo would not exaggerate any shortcoming in your DACs. In fact, such a thing would happen in the digital domain upstream from the DAC and its low pass filter.

 

[jimfisheye]

Let me ask a leading question from this direction.

What do you think you are missing or not hearing right now with the 24 bit 48k 7.1.4 mixes as delivered?
Have you heard some element of fidelity in 24/96 on your system in stereo or 5.1 that you feel is corrupted on your system if you run at 48k?

Of course what I'm fishing for is that you heard something all right but the root cause might be something other than 48k sample rate.

I used to think 16 bit 44.1k CD was a crude audibly lo-fi format. I had hundreds of CDs to prove the point and many vinyl editions of the same that proved to be better. A mountain of evidence! And it was all completely wrong and it really turned out that I had a ringer collection of crude volume war mastered CDs. Probably because that's about 93% of them even made! But the conclusion was still very wrong and the format can be genuine full fidelity (with careful attention to dynamics in mastering). 24 bit is just perfect and easy.

 

[Electric Moo]

My pet bat gets upset by all that stuff.

 

[jimfisheye]

You know what's actually hard to find? Any kind of emitter product that can reproduce those frequencies! I had someone ask me about building a ultrasonic noise maker to scare away rodents and whatnot. Couldn't find any emitters that went up over 100kHz. Those critters apparently hear up that far and they kind of laugh at the rodent deterrents that maybe chirp at 20 - 30kHz.

Connect those dots however you want if you are dreaming of hearing ultrasonics from 96k audio from your loudspeakers.

 

[mandrix]

What room correction plugin or app is restricting to 48k?
Something older perhaps? That's unexpected.

Dirac Live is restricted to 48K output. I suspect Audyysey and AccuEQ as well, maybe others but don't know which ones.
I still think the benefits of at least Dirac Live outweigh higher sample rates.
I CAN turn off the Dirac Live processing if I chose to, and sometimes do for comparisons. My AVR will hold 3 filters, one is the "stock" Dirac Live calibration, and I have two more with the Harman -6dB and -8dB curves added to boost the low end up a little as Dirac tends to go a little conservative in that area.

Dirac Live has been around a while but is constantly being updated via the pc app, which is what I use.

 

[MidiMagic]

I am thinking more of how many different pieces of hardware, how many pieces of software, and how many different kinds of recording media are necessary.

At one time I had separate players for 78, microgroove, CD-4 (short lived), AM, FM stereo, TV stereo, half-track stereo reel, quarter-track stereo reel, RCA cassette, Philips cassette, 4-track cartridge, 8-track cartridge, CD, VHS, and DVD. I ran out of space!

I have pared this down to standardgroove78 (for odd speeds), Microgroove (2 units), AM/FM stereo (part of receiver), TV stereo, Philips cassette, CD, and VHS (note that I removed most magnetic media).

How much more equipment is needed for the new formats?