Why no 96k audio?

[fitzcaraldo215]

I have been through quite a number of blurays at this point, especially classical concerts, operas and ballets. I have yet to encounter an audio/video release at any higher audio resolution than 48k/24 bit. At least that is what the display on my Oppo 93 says. So, how come?

I have Plenty of audio only disks at 96 or 192k.

[Mr. Movie Fan]

You'd think Criterion would at least do it for a mono PCM track. A 96k LPCM mono track would be much closer to the analog magnetic source.

[SPIDERone]

I believe the Akira blu-ray is 192kHz, 24-bit

[YodasFootPowder]

Can the average human ear even tell a difference?

[ManUtd]

Check out Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City. I believe it is 96KHz/24bit. To this day, it's still one of the best sounding BDs I have heard.

[Presence]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

Can the average human ear even tell a difference?

Yes.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by pmontreux

Yes.

I question that. I read about a experiment that was done by one of the HT magazines with 5 viewers in 2009 where they had them listen to a BD. First in lossy and then in lossless. 3 out of 5 couldn't tell the difference.

[solarrdadd]

strap this on for your listening pleasure!

[Presence]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I question that. I read about a experiment that was done by one of the HT magazines with 5 viewers in 2009 where they had them listen to a BD. First in lossy and then in lossless. 3 out of 5 couldn't tell the difference.

You might be right. It's probably harder for the "average" viewer to tell a difference compared to someone who actually listens to high quality audio on high quality equipment and has been doing it for some time. And testing 5 people isn't nearly a large enough sample size.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by pmontreux

You might be right. It's probably harder for the "average" viewer to tell a difference compared to someone who actually listens to high quality audio on high quality equipment and has been doing it for some time. And testing 5 people isn't nearly a large enough sample size.

They tested staff members that listened to lossless on a regular basis.

[Presence]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

They tested staff members that listened to lossless on a regular basis.

That's interesting. There's a clear difference to me but It's certainly harder to tell on a BD. There's a certain organic completeness to high quality audio that's lost in lower formats. I'm sure It's increasingly difficult the higher one goes and probably impossible after a certain point but I can attest from personal experience. Some individuals might simply have better hearing.

[sumawo13]

There is no reason to sample above 48kHz because the range of human hearing only extends to 20kHz. Personally I don't see the reason in sampling in 24-bit either as most sound systems don't have the 96db of dynamic range provided by 16-bit resolution, and those that do probably would not benefit due to the noise floor of the listening environment/limited dynamic range of the music.

[DarknessBDJM]

Baraka has it, as does Chronos.
As already mentioned Akira has 192k.

[Canada]

Police: Certifiable has a 96 khz True HD track it's the best I have ever heard.

[Clark Kent]

The truth is that most Hollywood films are made at 24-bit/48kHz, so upsampling it would have no benefit. There are a number of audio releases at 24-bit/96kHz. Leonard Cohen's "Live At The Isle Of Wight" has both the stereo and 5.1 surround track in 24-bit/96kHz, which sounds amazing for an older recording from the 70's.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

They tested staff members that listened to lossless on a regular basis.

However, in most cases "lossless" is CD quality audio (44.1 KHz/16 bit). Going to 24-bit audio makes a dramatic difference and the majority of movies these days are authored at 48/24 so there's room for improvement. I assume by "96k" the OP is referring to 96/24 audio.

[42041]

I doubt movies are recorded at 96khz (though I'm not sure). That's very far into the realm of diminishing returns considering typical adult hearing tops out around 16-18khz and movie theaters don't have very high-quality audio anyway.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by 42041

I doubt movies are recorded at 96khz (though I'm not sure). That's very far into the realm of diminishing returns considering typical adult hearing tops out around 16-18khz and movie theaters don't have very high-quality audio anyway.

It's true that movies aren't recorded at 96KHz but it would be a good idea to have 24-bit audio for the BD releases. That makes a far larger impact on the sound quality than the sampling frequency.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

They tested staff members that listened to lossless on a regular basis.

Personally, I have no problem being able to tell the difference. I only wish that DVD-A and SACD didn't fail so miserably. Now, in some respect I think it matters if you've played a musical instrument in the abilty to hear the difference. I played piano and drums for years and the higher sampling/bit rate is clearly noticable.

[Kryptonic]

Queen Rock Montreal has a killer 96/24 DTS-HD HR track.