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

[sjcorne]

Is any of this talk about format wars and new equipment relevant to the thread?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

How much more equipment is needed for the new formats?

Probably less equipment than you have now....

 

[barfle]

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?

What, no piano rolls?

Yes, I’ve also pretty much abandoned any mag tape formats, too. I say “pretty much” because my Motorola EVR uses a magnetic sound track, and I still have a boom box that plays cassettes. Oh, my 1979 VW Super Beetle convertible has a cassette deck in it. So maybe not, although I don’t have any music tapes.

 

[Owen Smith]

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

Downmixing Atmos to 5.1 only involves taking the 7.1 bed and mixing the surrounds and rear surrounds together. I don't see how 96KHz sampling rate would help that. And downmix of 7.1 to stereo is known technology too, it's been around for a couple of decades.

 

[Owen Smith]

What, no piano rolls?

Don't forget wire recorders! All the rage in the 1940s: Wire recording - Wikipedia. Then there's DC bias tape recorders and other esoterica, and...

Yeah, the formats I can play are reduced compared to what I used to have. It's basically CD sized optical media, broadcast FM/DAB/TV, and internet streamed stuff. Plus S-VHS, the deck looks so cool I can't bring myself to remove it from the rack.

 

[KG10]

Downmixing Atmos to 5.1 only involves taking the 7.1 bed and mixing the surrounds and rear surrounds together. I don't see how 96KHz sampling rate would help that. And downmix of 7.1 to stereo is known technology too, it's been around for a couple of decades.

Sorry I meant for people that wanted the 5.1 or stereo downmix to be 96k as oppose to 48k since many 5.1 and stereo releases are in 96k or above.

 

[Owen Smith]

Sorry I meant for people that wanted the 5.1 or stereo downmix to be 96k as oppose to 48k since many 5.1 and stereo releases are in 96k or above.

Again what value would that be? 48KHz 24 bit is more than enough to represent anything even a 5 year old with perfect hearing can hear. As stated earlier the only benefit of 96KHz is that on original A to D the filters can be gradual slopes and well away from any audio frequencies, rather than a hard filter that comes close to attenuating audio. Modern hard filters have got better, and you can digitise at 96KHz and then downsample to avoid the problem anyway. And on playback DACs can upsample to avoid the same issue.

Or are we simply in a "bigger numbers better" situation, in which case you should be asking for 384KHz 32 bit.

 

[Owen Smith]

What, no piano rolls?

No love for Edison cylinders either apparently.

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/96khz-vs-192khz.31343/#post-593198
(>20 bits & >58kHz not needed)


Kirk Bayne

 

[mandrix]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/96khz-vs-192khz.31343/#post-593198
(>20 bits & >58kHz not needed)


Kirk Bayne

Interesting.

 

[Owen Smith]

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/96khz-vs-192khz.31343/#post-593198
(>20 bits & >58kHz not needed)

I remember that discussion and being unconvinced that as high as 58KHz is required.

 

[Sal1950]

Or are we simply in a "bigger numbers better" situation,

Yes 48k is fully transparent to the mic feed.