Ideal Format for Quad Downloads?

[davidd]

What's the ideal multichannel format for distributing / purchasing quad (4.0) downloads?

So far, I've been delivering my quad releases in a 5.1 audio file (e.g., WAV, FLAC), because it's familiar and well-supported. However, I worry that an empty LFE channel might confuse (disable) Bass Management on some processors. Is this known to happen? Any other technical caveats?

Of course, a 4.0 WAV or AIF file will be 33% smaller than it's 5.1 equivalent, so that's a big plus.

5.1 is popular and well-supported. Is there any history of consumer hardware barfing on 4.0 audio files?

Finally, is it common for record labels to distribute 4.0 content on 5.1 media, as I've been doing?

Sorry for all the noob questions. I just want to get things right. Any advice is appreciated.

 

[DuncanS]

I haven't come across a silent LFE or Centre channel causing issues.

Quite a few people on QQ have to add a silent LFE & Centre to get a Quad file to play on a lot of AVRs. Most of us prefer FLAC files as they are handled by a lot of equipment, PCs etc.

The Dutton-Vocalion series of Quad releases on SACD are on the disc as 5.1 with silent Centre & LFE, again for playback compatibility.

 

[quadsearcher]

Some players need the empty center and sub channel to properly play 4.0.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

What's the ideal multichannel format for distributing / purchasing quad (4.0) downloads?

So far, I've been delivering my quad releases in a 5.1 audio file (e.g., WAV, FLAC), because it's familiar and well-supported. However, I worry that an empty LFE channel might confuse (disable) Bass Management on some processors. Is this known to happen? Any other technical caveats?

Of course, a 4.0 WAV or AIF file will be 33% smaller than it's 5.1 equivalent, so that's a big plus.

5.1 is popular and well-supported. Is there any history of consumer hardware barfing on 4.0 audio files?

Finally, is it common for record labels to distribute 4.0 content on 5.1 media, as I've been doing?

Sorry for all the noob questions. I just want to get things right. Any advice is appreciated.

4.0 or 5.1 FLAC works. I would suggest 5.1 FLAC as it would be exactly the same size as the 4.0 FLAC but with greater hardware compatibility.

 

[par4ken]

Most people's equipment would be happiest with 5.1 flac.

Myself I prefer 4.0 flac. In the past I used a four channel sound card in my computer which would play the front left and right through the front channels and center and Lfe through the back. So I always had to convert them to 4.0 flac to be able to play them properly. I now have an eight channel sound card but still have to swap around outputs around to play 5.1(as I'm set up primarily for 4.0).

My Oppo player has no problem with either 4.0 or 5.1.

It's rather sad that many equipment manufactures didn't think about or care about the ability to properly play 4.0 files!

It's also sad that software such as Foobar seems to have no playback option for assigning a particular multi channel output to a particular sound card output.

It seems that nobody cares about compatibility!

 

[sjcorne]

Finally, is it common for record labels to distribute 4.0 content on 5.1 media, as I've been doing?

Immersive Audio Album is a new site that specializes in this, it may be best to contact them directly:
https://immersiveaudioalbum.com

 

[jimfisheye]

What's the ideal multichannel format for distributing / purchasing quad (4.0) downloads?

FLAC

And that goes for pretty much everything audio up to 8 channels (7.1)

PS. Put 4.0 quad into 5.1 format with blank C and Lfe channels for compatibility. Many media players (hardware and software) are only programmed to recognize 2.0 or 5.1. Blank channels do not make FLAC files bigger so there's no compromise there.

 

[timothyemerson]

What's the ideal multichannel format for distributing / purchasing quad (4.0) downloads?

So far, I've been delivering my quad releases in a 5.1 audio file (e.g., WAV, FLAC), because it's familiar and well-supported. However, I worry that an empty LFE channel might confuse (disable) Bass Management on some processors. Is this known to happen? Any other technical caveats?

Of course, a 4.0 WAV or AIF file will be 33% smaller than it's 5.1 equivalent, so that's a big plus.

5.1 is popular and well-supported. Is there any history of consumer hardware barfing on 4.0 audio files?

Finally, is it common for record labels to distribute 4.0 content on 5.1 media, as I've been doing?

Sorry for all the noob questions. I just want to get things right. Any advice is appreciated.

I vote for the download folder to include:

1. 4.0 FLAC
2. 4.0 FLAC with silent centre channel
3. 4.0 FLAC with silent centre channel and silent LFE channel

Then the customer just downloads 1 folder that contains everything that old and new receivers need to be able to play the files and can either retain or delete whatever is currently surplus to requirement (who knows what future hardware limitations may be introduced).

It's a mystery to me how contemporary receivers can handle 13.2 channels but throw 4 at them and they spit the dummy.

 

[jimfisheye]

FYI, a 4.0 FLAC and a 5.1 FLAC of the same quad with blank C & Lfe are the same size. Digital silent is compressed to nothing. (A couple kB or something but effectively zero.)

 

[kap'n krunch]

I vote for the download folder to include:

1. 4.0 FLAC
2. 4.0 FLAC with silent centre channel
3. 4.0 FLAC with silent centre channel and silent LFE channel

Then the customer just downloads 1 folder that contains everything that old and new receivers need to be able to play the files and can either retain or delete whatever is currently surplus to requirement (who knows what future hardware limitations may be introduced).

It's a mystery to me how contemporary receivers can handle 13.2 channels but throw 4 at them and they spit the dummy.

I'd recommend number three as the standard , 5.1 with silent LFE and center to avoid issues, that's how I mixed my ONLY Quad submission so far in the MCH market thru IAA.

 

[par4ken]

Not meaning to hijack this thread by going off on a tangent BUT,

When all I had was my four channel sound card I would often mixdown the 6 channel multies to four. The centre went to the fronts and the Lfe to the back. I felt that approach made up for the fact that many/most 5.1 mixes have most of the bass in the front. I only use matched full range speakers and so want strong bass coming from the rear as well as the front. My other goal was to make the rear channels closer in level to that of the front, sometimes a slight rear level boost was applied as well. That proved to be a good solution for me, at the time.

That strategy is not needed as much now that my sound card supports more channels. Lately I've been retaining the 5.1's as is for now, with the exception of those with silent or faked centre and Lfe channels.

With those old Mobile Fidelity DTS CD's of quad material (with a fake centre and derived Lfe), it's best to just drop those extra unnecessary/unwanted channels. I still convert to 4.0 but for "compatibility (5.1)" as most are describing here it would be best to replace those faked channels with silent tracks.

I guess what I'm really getting at is that nothing is 100% compatible in all cases, just one way is more compatible in more situations. Too bad full compatibility of all equipment wasn't insisted on right from the beginning! It irks me that the centre and Lfe channels were placed before the the left and right surround channels, instead of the other way around. I guess that the powers that be didn't give a damn about quad, giving it no real consideration!

 

[HomerJAU]

With all due respect, the number of users listening with a four channel sound card would be minuscule. This scenario is best ignored as far as this topic is concerned. Most users and most devices play quad in a 5.1 formatted file with no issue. That’s the norm and anyone playing quad from files that can’t play from a 5.1 file will already have their own workaround to solve their issue.

 

[davidd]

Great info, everyone! I definitely came to the right place!

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

 

[Nyad]

Wish I'd known my Sony STR-DN1080 didn't like my Pink Floyd Immersion Quad blu-rays before I'd bought it (plays front channels only), where my old Onkyo TX-NR609 played them fine.

Is there a data-base of receivers that are Quad friendly (without silent center & LFE)?

 

[par4ken]

With all due respect, the number of users listening with a four channel sound card would be minuscule. This scenario is best ignored as far as this topic is concerned. Most users and most devices play quad in a 5.1 formatted file with no issue. That’s the norm and anyone playing quad from files that can’t play from a 5.1 file will already have their own workaround to solve their issue.

The number of people that listen to music via any surround system would also be miniscule. Really none of us should be ignored. I'm used to that though, being abandoned by the industry many times over. Four point zero forever!

Digital audio lends itself to many possible audio formats 1.0, 1.1., 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1 and on and on. Ideality audio systems should be designed to handle them all. It's all in the software!

 

[MidiMagic]

Regular matrix.

 

[ubertrout]

I've always assumed the best would be a 5.0 file. Why would you use 5.1? A lot of players, like from Sony, don't handle 4.0 FLAC properly, but all the ones I know of can handle 5.0. Am I wrong?

 

[ubertrout]

Wish I'd known my Sony STR-DN1080 didn't like my Pink Floyd Immersion Quad blu-rays before I'd bought it (plays front channels only), where my old Onkyo TX-NR609 played them fine.

Is there a data-base of receivers that are Quad friendly (without silent center & LFE)?

Is this playing files or the actual discs? I would have thought this would be a player problem if it's the discs.

 

[par4ken]

Regular matrix.

Why settle for matrix when discrete is readily available?

 

[jimfisheye]

Being programmed to only recognize 2.0 or 5.1 is really a thing with some stand alone hardware disc players and a few software media players as well. It's genuinely a software bug. The channel formats are in fact official standards. Between audio being so subjective and many consumers apparently being easy to please, this is the landscape.

It's kind of on the consumer to recognize the format and play along. Stereo has two full range speaker channels. The listener has to be bothered to hook up both speakers. Do we entertain the idea to just release everything in mono as a failsafe for that? Answer is no.

This follows to surround. Here it can make sense to use alternate speaker arrays in some cases. eg. Speaker managing 5.1 into 4.0. It's on the listener to do this correctly or you hear the content altered. A popular screw up here is to get misinformed that 5.1 carries only highs in the mains channels and all bass only in the Lfe. Because a popular trimmed down "small top" speaker array choice is meant to be used by removing the lows from the full range mains channels and redirecting them to the Lfe. People see this so often and think it's in the wires that way. If you have a small top array and refuse to set speaker management (thinking it would alter the program or something), you're not hearing any of the lows in the mix from the mains channels. Which is pretty altering!

Some people seem more interested in playing around and altering their music than listening as the artist intended. Listening with the "club eq" or "big cave eq" setting for amusement. Listening to a picture disc vinyl even though it's a generational copy of the music with added noise. Listening to a lossy encoder format instead of the lossless source it was generated from. Some people choose not to sit in the sweet spot at a concert (vs. settling for available not great seats). All good if it's intentional.