- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,408
It seems ALL Hi RES releases these days whether it be BD~A, SHM SACDs and SACD box sets are released in very limited quantities ... with the current SDE BD~A ATMOS releases being a prime example!
The case for 96 kHz (and 88.2) vs Lower Resolutions (44.1 and 48)
- Thread starter ar surround
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
SACD is still with us!
It's sometimes used for multich releases, but I'd still rather have a LPCM BluRay release.
Mr. Afternoon
Mixing Engineer & Artist
Or good old fashioned DVD-Audio!
Sure, if it can hold the data.
Mr. Afternoon
Mixing Engineer & Artist
You can squeeze over 100 minutes of 24/96 5.1 on a DVD-A, so yes!
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
But you usually lose space to DTS 5.1 and DD 5.1 on commercial discs, being DVD-A/V.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,408
Those Howard Shore LORD OF THE RINGS MLP DVD~As in 24/48 5.1 resolution hold almost 3 hours of content on 1 DVD~A!
https://www.discogs.com/release/800...-Rings-The-Two-Towers-The-Complete-Recordings
Last edited:
I'll take whatever I can get it on. LOL
But when we get BD's today, it will usually include a 96k or 192k of the 2ch mix and more..
Nice to have the elbow room.
The new Tears For Fears BD release from SDE includes,
"This is the one Tears For Fears album from the 1980s that had never been mixed for spatial audio, so it's clearly something of a big deal that Steven Wilson has created a Dolby Atmos Mix and a 5.1 Surround Mix. Both feature on the SDE-exclusive Blu-ray Audio along with a never-before-heard instrumental mix and, even better, two previously unreleased bonus tracks."
I always said that I have no regrets in life...Then I screwed it all up by starting this thread.
abby normal
Active Member
you can hear the effect most easily on broadband [trebles] music, complex signals, and filtering at a slope sufficient to have no substantial signal at 22.1 kilocycles. it takes a very sharp filter to do that without cutting substantially in the top octave, and when you engage the filter it "rings" or resonates at the corner frequency, IOW it sounds a cupped or hooty [IOW you start hearing a discrete alias tone] when the filter is engaged and this sonic artifact occurs well within the top octave band. try this with a program such as Dcart which has a selection of different filters.I'm 56, I can't hear above 15 kHz. This all seems unreal to me
You're forgiven, brother. See post #24. lol.
barfle
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
I’ve often noted that the fact that you can’t watch your medium moving is a ddeficiency in modern electronics. Watching reels turn, always at different speeds, was soooo freaking groovy… Now I have to make do with an Atari Video Music, although a Wurlyscope would be cool, too.
You're thinking of the frequency response thing wrongly. It's not about hearing 20khz, it's about dealing with gremlins. Upsampling/oversampling (or hirez recording) has a MAJOR benefit to the downstream digital-to-analog conversion efforts. The heavy lifting of one's dac's filtering (or in the case of NOS dacs, software players that upsample) is sooo much easier and cleaner when done higher in the stratosphere. These filters can be much more effective at linearity, for example. The result? Cleaner music, less background noise, less rf, a more stable noise floor, etc. A (accidental in some cases) side benefit in lots of hirez offerings is that the actual mastering of the recording is done more carefully and often results in cleaner masters...simply because the target audience is expecting quality.I'm 56, I can't hear above 15 kHz. This all seems unreal to me
If you've never heard redbook upsampled to 1.5 Mhz or DSD upmodulated to DSD1024 you're in for an aural treat. Get a NOS dac, a software player like HQPlayer (with great filtering and modulator choices) and go to town. The "clean window" vs "no window, just air" analogy is somewhat true.
Owen Smith
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
All DACs have been upsampling for many years, so all this talk of better filtering at hi res is pointless. You get the better filtering anyway with upsampling.
?? Better filtering cuz the filter needs to do less is NOT pointless. And in my world, one of my dacs, my Holo May 2 channel dac, has an NOS mode where no oversampling is done...so instead of relying on $5 chips (giving them the benefit of the doubt...more likley $.50) internal to the dac, we use software like HQPlayer and use powerful cpus to do the heavy lifting (upsampling/filtering/modulating/dithering/noise shaping).
And in the larger situation where your dac does its own oversampling, there is still a benefit to giving it the best sample rate/bit depth to do its thing, hit its sweetspot (all dacs have them). The oversimplified punchline: give the dac little to do except what it does best, converting these signals into music. Makes all the difference in the music...not pointless in any way, unless you don't care.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,408
REELy, SW????????
I know that this thread is talking about different resolutions, in Khz, and I assume 24bit. As it ultimately is about hearing I stumbled onto a feature that can be done with the listening software/player called JRiver, which I have used since 2014 exclusively.
Here is a tip:
You don't want to try and compensate fully for the loss as that won't sound good (a little EQ can go a long way), and you definitely don't want to add net gain. Your ears are a little different from each other, but have a lot in common too. So I think the most sensible place to start is with a shelf filter as your audiogram isn't particularly "bumpy": both ears mostly fall off sharply above 3k or so.
Just as a simple starting test, I'd be tempted to start by opening parametric EQ, reducing the overall volume by about 10db (to get some head room) and then dial in a high shelf filter. The filters you should add in parametric EQ are an "Adjust the Volume" with a -10dB gain, then an "Adjust the high frequencies (High Shelf)" filter with a Bandwidth(Q) of 1, a frequency of of 3500, and a gain of 5dB. Try that out listening for a little while. If it doesn't sound any different, try stepping up the shelf filter's Gain 1dB at a time until you definitely hear a difference and see what you think. Once you've got a difference you can hear, you can try raising or lowering the frequency a little (you might want to try it at 3000 or 4000 to see if that "fits" better). I would resist fiddling with the Q very much though. One important thing to know is that if you wind up adding more than 10dB of gain to the shelf, you need to change the adjust the volume filter to reduce the overall volume more to compensate (you never want to add more gain than you're subtracting as you can push the audio into clipping/clip protection). My guess is that you'll hear a difference right away with 5dB, but everyone is different.
It would probably be worth trying to compensate for that 1KHz dip on your left ear, especially on headphones (it might be a little weird to try to fix that on speakers out in a room). But if you want to take a try, a good place to start might be an "adjust a frequency (equalizer filter)" with the frequency set to 1000, the bandwidth(Q) set to 1.5 and the gain set to 2 or 3dB. Make sure that it's only set on the Left channel, your right ear looks just fine in that band. If you have headphones on, you could try increasing or reducing the gain to try and "match" what your ears hear. I think the shelf I mention above will make a bigger difference by far, but 1KHz is an important frequency range for human voices so it might be worth trying to fix it.
Paddle around and see what you think, and report back what you hear!
Here is a tip:
You don't want to try and compensate fully for the loss as that won't sound good (a little EQ can go a long way), and you definitely don't want to add net gain. Your ears are a little different from each other, but have a lot in common too. So I think the most sensible place to start is with a shelf filter as your audiogram isn't particularly "bumpy": both ears mostly fall off sharply above 3k or so.
Just as a simple starting test, I'd be tempted to start by opening parametric EQ, reducing the overall volume by about 10db (to get some head room) and then dial in a high shelf filter. The filters you should add in parametric EQ are an "Adjust the Volume" with a -10dB gain, then an "Adjust the high frequencies (High Shelf)" filter with a Bandwidth(Q) of 1, a frequency of of 3500, and a gain of 5dB. Try that out listening for a little while. If it doesn't sound any different, try stepping up the shelf filter's Gain 1dB at a time until you definitely hear a difference and see what you think. Once you've got a difference you can hear, you can try raising or lowering the frequency a little (you might want to try it at 3000 or 4000 to see if that "fits" better). I would resist fiddling with the Q very much though. One important thing to know is that if you wind up adding more than 10dB of gain to the shelf, you need to change the adjust the volume filter to reduce the overall volume more to compensate (you never want to add more gain than you're subtracting as you can push the audio into clipping/clip protection). My guess is that you'll hear a difference right away with 5dB, but everyone is different.
It would probably be worth trying to compensate for that 1KHz dip on your left ear, especially on headphones (it might be a little weird to try to fix that on speakers out in a room). But if you want to take a try, a good place to start might be an "adjust a frequency (equalizer filter)" with the frequency set to 1000, the bandwidth(Q) set to 1.5 and the gain set to 2 or 3dB. Make sure that it's only set on the Left channel, your right ear looks just fine in that band. If you have headphones on, you could try increasing or reducing the gain to try and "match" what your ears hear. I think the shelf I mention above will make a bigger difference by far, but 1KHz is an important frequency range for human voices so it might be worth trying to fix it.
Paddle around and see what you think, and report back what you hear!
Similar threads
