How many of you can play MC flac files directly?

[Guy Robinson]

I have 7.1, no Atmos. So the Oppo/Yamaha Receiver does well with this as I pass everything bit streamed to my receiver via HDMI from the Oppo. Everything works great with all drives attached to the Oppo. I even have Blu-Ray images on those drives. I'm very happy with the set-up even though most say it is archaic.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I have a 40 channel WAV file which I can play on JRMC but, of course, it converts it on-the-fly to the 5.1 channels that I do have.

I have also converted it to WavePack and played it as above. Conversions to FLAC return error message indicating that there is an insufficient number of channels available...............as stated.

 

[DigiPete]

1) I play all music from files in an all digital pro rig. ALAC or FLAC 2.0 - 5.1 from DAS

Current setup: DAS - Mac - firewire - Weiss AFI1 DDC - AES/EBU - Genelec 8260 Monitors / 7271 sub.
All digital balanced connections, all active, all coaxial drivers, carefully room compensated incl. timing.
I.e. ultra transparent.

2) Why on earth would I play a disc, that would just increase jitter and realtime errors.

3) Nope.
Only the other way: rip & store on 12 TB Pegasus thunderbolt3 DAS.

 

[jimfisheye]

DigiPete gets it.

I do kind of wonder now how this is going to play out with FLAC being limited to 8 channels. Will WavPack take over as the consumer format? Atmos files are either going to need WavPack or need to be kept encoded in their containers. Those of us who like to keep nice clean digital archives free of proprietary formats don't like encoded things in container formats. Throwing WavPack in the mix just like we have random ALAC files in the mix seems the most likely.

Now that I think about it... Will Atmos save WavPack?!?
I suppose they'll have to eventually release their Atmos codec so people can actually play the files in the first place without being grifted into purchasing channels of DACs all over again like they're doing at present. Then we can talk about that.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I suppose they'll have to eventually release their Atmos codec so people can actually play the files in the first place without being grifted into purchasing channels of DACs all over again like they're doing at present.

Lets Hope. But once that codec is released, unless its a licensed software solution, Dolby loses royalty money. Don't think for a moment that some portion of the format methodology isn't dedicated to DRM. It was with pretty much every commercial digital format that has come our way.

 

[himey]

If you are connecting with HDMI can't you just go straight to the AVR? Maybe you are using the Oppo as a preamp.

The Oppo is the processor. I have never owned a HDMI AVR. I use an analog multichannel preamp as the preamp, and multiple stereo power amps (conrad-johnson's) to drive full range speaker channels.

 

[himey]

Well, 7.1 is still 2D. All speakers are at the same level, no heights.

You lost the context of my reply to jimfisheye...

 

[himey]

Yes, I have both a 7.1 and a 5.2.2 system. The 7.1 flacs I've ripped from Atmos discs won't play on either one of them.

Again, FLAC files discard the metadata needed to decode Atmos so you shouldn't be surprised. Standard 7.1 flac files are device dependent. Try converting the FLAC's to standard 7.1 WAV files.

 

[OdysseyMusik]

I play 7.1 FLAC but I don’t have many.

There is one free 7.1 FLAC in the lower part of this page: Streaming - Surround Music One
Good for testing
And this with quad/5.1/7.1 is just released: Pat Mastelotto & Markus Reuter - FACE - Surround Music One

 

[jimfisheye]

Lets Hope. But once that codec is released, unless its a licensed software solution, Dolby loses royalty money. Don't think for a moment that some portion of the format methodology isn't dedicated to DRM. It was with pretty much every commercial digital format that has come our way.

When bluray came about, you paid $50 to either MakeMKV or (I forget the other one) and Sony got their cut. (I'm aware that you can workaround that now with perpetual demo mode and so on. That's how they handled that back on day 1 anyway.)

Restricting Atmos to hardware interface sales like they are at present suggests they don't believe they have a format that will sell unless they go for tying it to hardware and use 'copy protection gone wild' strategies. I don't know what the hell anyone involved is thinking. That's obviously how it appears though. If someone thought they had a new format to sell, their first move wouldn't be to restrict availability.

So, Dolby. If you have a product and want people to check this out, you need to... release it! Then you can sell music in the format that people might want to buy. Dolby Labs must be using Sony's old playbook or something.

 

[riskylogic]

There is one free 7.1 FLAC in the lower part of this page: Streaming - Surround Music One
Good for testing
And this with quad/5.1/7.1 is just released: Pat Mastelotto & Markus Reuter - FACE - Surround Music One

FACE is what prompted me to post my initial query. I can't play the 7.1. I have no idea whether or not it is supposed to be Atmos.

 

[himey]

DigiPete gets it.

I do kind of wonder now how this is going to play out with FLAC being limited to 8 channels. Will WavPack take over as the consumer format? Atmos files are either going to need WavPack or need to be kept encoded in their containers. Those of us who like to keep nice clean digital archives free of proprietary formats don't like encoded things in container formats. Throwing WavPack in the mix just like we have random ALAC files in the mix seems the most likely.

Now that I think about it... Will Atmos save WavPack?!?
I suppose they'll have to eventually release their Atmos codec so people can actually play the files in the first place without being grifted into purchasing channels of DACs all over again like they're doing at present. Then we can talk about that.

Do you think all the future generations of 3D audio will be encode - decode formats, like early generation surround sound audio? SQ, QS, Pro Logic, ect.

 

[jimfisheye]

You lost the context of my reply to jimfisheye...

The "3D" term is being used only when there are height channels available to the mix.

7.1 is all on the floor. I thought this should be called "3D" too because of the extra channels enveloping you vs stereo but the "industry" is using that to refer to including height channels. The argument is surround on the floor is still "2D". Just better defined. Adding height now gets into actual "3D".

So...
The biggest 3D array you could support with 8 channels would be 5.1.2.

Atmos is going for 7.1.4 for the minimum array including the heights.
The 4 height channels kind of define the new addendum to the array and would be kind of important to be there whereas the extra object channels could be delivered from the 7.1.4 channels well enough without additional discrete object channels.

 

[himey]

When bluray came about, you paid $50 to either MakeMKV or (I forget the other one) and Sony got their cut. (I'm aware that you can workaround that now with perpetual demo mode and so on. That's how they handled that back on day 1 anyway.)

Restricting Atmos to hardware interface sales like they are at present suggests they don't believe they have a format that will sell unless they go for tying it to hardware and use 'copy protection gone wild' strategies. I don't know what the hell anyone involved is thinking. That's obviously how it appears though. If someone thought they had a new format to sell, their first move wouldn't be to restrict availability.

So, Dolby. If you have a product and want people to check this out, you need to... release it! Then you can sell music in the format that people might want to buy. Dolby Labs must be using Sony's old playbook or something.

MQA music model is even more restrictive sadly...

 

[jimfisheye]

Do you think all the future generations of 3D audio will be encode - decode formats, like early generation surround sound audio? SQ, QS, Pro Logic, ect.

I think the original idea behind the encoded formats was to use the existing 2 channel formats to deliver a surround mix. Back then the alternative would have to be multichannel tape (which was done with Q4 and Q8). Vinyl would not have been an option otherwise.

Now we already have a single multi channel file solution no different from a single file for stereo. But now we can share files online. The cryptic stuff looks like it's more about copy protection now. I'm not ignorant to that but at the same time you need to deliver a product or not.

 

[himey]

The "3D" term is being used only when there are height channels available to the mix.

7.1 is all on the floor. I thought this should be called "3D" too because of the extra channels enveloping you vs stereo but the "industry" is using that to refer to including height channels. The argument is surround on the floor is still "2D". Just better defined. Adding height now gets into actual "3D".

So...
The biggest 3D array you could support with 8 channels would be 5.1.2.

Atmos is going for 7.1.4 for the minimum array including the heights.
The 4 height channels kind of define the new addendum to the array and would be kind of important to be there whereas the extra object channels could be delivered from the 7.1.4 channels well enough without additional discrete object channels.

The conservation was about how many channels were needed for 3D. Sorry for not saying EIGHT CHANNELS IS ENOUGH FOR 3D, rather than simply saying 7.1.

 

[himey]

I think the original idea behind the encoded formats was to use the existing 2 channel formats to deliver a surround mix. Back then the alternative would have to be multichannel tape (which was done with Q4 and Q8). Vinyl would not have been an option otherwise.

Now we already have a single multi channel file solution no different from a single file for stereo. But now we can share files online. The cryptic stuff looks like it's more about copy protection now. I'm not ignorant to that but at the same time you need to deliver a product or not.

Encoding is needed to fit on disc formats. My point is, encode - decode is limiting compared to discrete channels (although the Atmos literature would say different). I am attempting to look a decade into the future when Dolby will look to upgrade the format or another company looks to get a market share. Atmos is first generation and I don't think for a moment it can't be improved and that Dolby won't want to sell you something else, eventually.

 

[atrocity]

Wavpack supports up to 256 channels as well as 32 bit floating point audio. It kind of came along too late and everyone from consumer to studio engineer uses FLAC.

Atmos could actually be a force to change that perhaps? But they'd have to, you know, release the decoder codec and make their new format 'real'.

Wouldn't putting Atmos into a discrete multichannel container result in the loss of the adaptive element? That is, as I understand it now, Atmos in TrueHD being fed to compatible hardware can send audio to any of various speakers depending on what happens to be connected. If you've got 256 discrete channels in a non-proprietary container, how would you get good results on both a 5.4.2 system and an 11.whatever.whatever?

I'm not wild about proprietary stuff either, but (at least to the limited extent that I actually understand it), I can see it making sense in this particular case.

 

[jimfisheye]

Encoding is needed to fit on disc formats.

You mean data compression if you are referring to disc size, right?
There's the max size of the disc.
There are the recognized formats for existing playback devices. (Many of them being 2 audio channels. Hence the creative encoding schemes to use those.)
And there is the max data rate that can be read off the disc. Data compression is required to comply with this as well as disc size.

My point is, encode - decode is limiting compared to discrete channels (although the Atmos literature would say different).

There are lossless encoding schemes too. DTS-MA is 1:1 with the raw original multi channel file, for one example. Encoded isn't just synonymous with lossy.

I am attempting to look a decade into the future when Dolby will look to upgrade the format or another company looks to get a market share. Atmos is first generation and I don't think for a moment it can't be improved and that Dolby won't want to sell you something else, eventually.

It sounds like a great idea to me. Quite simply... The only thing better than some number of channels in your system is more channels!
I'm just disappointed that there's an element of greed running wild with trying to force hardware sales with this at its introduction. Want another dead format? Actively preventing people from listening to it unless they duplicate a healthy chunk of their system over again is a good way to do that!

 

[jimfisheye]

Wouldn't putting Atmos into a discrete multichannel container result in the loss of the adaptive element? That is, as I understand it now, Atmos in TrueHD being fed to compatible hardware can send audio to any of various speakers depending on what happens to be connected. If you've got 256 discrete channels in a non-proprietary container, how would you get good results on both a 5.4.2 system and an 11.whatever.whatever?

I'm not wild about proprietary stuff either, but (at least to the limited extent that I actually understand it), I can see it making sense in this particular case.

It's just a little longer conversation.

Right now, they have the loss of the "being able to play it at all" element!

First the codec.

If you have the full compliment of object channel speakers (64 maybe?), then you could have 1:1 discrete channels.
Otherwise the object channel elements are placed as close to the intended spacial locations as possible in the 7.1 4 array channels.
Don't have the .4 height channels?
Then the system further folds it down to placing those channel elements into the 7.1 array.
Don't have even 7.1?
Well, now that's just too bad then. 7.1 is the discrete core of the mix as delivered. Now we're folding everything down to 5.1 or whatever you have.

That's how it's supposed to work.

There would be a step in ripping where you specify your target format. eg 7.1.4

So, there's some discussion and there is an obvious argument for keeping these bad boys in their dolby containers.

The channel assignments and order should land in a standard format eventually just like 5.1, 7.1, etc did. You take a multi channel file with 6 channels of audio and the media player assumes by default that it's L R C Lfe Ls Rs.

But I need the codec so I can shut up and listen to some mixes instead of looking at the format specs and theorizing about it!

I know it's possible to find the codec written for the OS that AVRs and the pro install theater system devices run. I don't know if my coding skills are up for translating it to MacOS or other though!