PCM 192 kHz/24-bit! When? - Blu-ray Forum

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 02:46 PM

When will we ever enjoy full high definition image plus 'full high resolution audio'?

Vlad44 · 03-23-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvda-sacd

When will we ever enjoy full high definition image plus 'full high resolution audio'?

it seems never.
nobody interested.
users still listen to their crapy 128kbit mp3 itunes, manufacturers concerned about copyright...

nhaase · 03-23-2008, 03:12 PM

I see Lionsgate doing that some time, they've been doing 7.1 PCM and I could see them working their way up to it.

Vlad44 · 03-23-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhaase

I see Lionsgate doing that some time, they've been doing 7.1 PCM and I could see them working their way up to it.

LOL... its rediculous. 1-2 titles? we, as a users, need ALL major bands in hi-res begining from say 80's.

frenchglen · 03-23-2008, 03:39 PM

For the people who are intersted in high resolution audio, not many are interested in 192kHz, even 96kHz for some. And for movies, it will be rare to ever see anything above 48kHz (I would ,ike it though). The standard recording, mixing and mastering resolution amongst movie studios in 24-bit 48kHz. The 192kHz in blu-ray is more to allow for music/music-focused releases, which can definitely benefit from 96kHz, and 192kHz releases. But, for a digital recording, unless it's been recorded in 192kHz, they would only be oversampling it, which most agree would be pointless as you couldn't really impove. What's more, some believe that 192kHz starts to have some problems and think it's worse than 96kHz.

By far the most important thing is for it to be lossless, and 24-bit. Not to mention good engineering, mixing and mastering by the people who do it. And, if it's 96kHz, you're in luck.

Vlad44 · 03-23-2008, 03:58 PM

industry made mistake by mistake. they had posibilities to enable hi-rez playback even on early cd/dvd devices. but instead the invented expencive n useless sacd, dvda and other proprietary shiit. who cares? average user need ONE device to play ALL formats available.

crackinhedz · 03-23-2008, 04:02 PM

PCM 192 kHz/24-bit! When?

hopefully never.

"A number of highly respected engineers know the push to 192KH is about manufacturers making money, not about scientific and engineering issues." - Dan Lavry

frenchglen · 03-23-2008, 06:39 PM

Yes, I have definitely seen that link before.

The fact that the industry is even divided (in a wide enough ratio to call it that) shows that we truly do not know everything, and THAT, is an undisputable fact in itself. It reminds you of the DSD vs. PCM argument. Funny, I feel that DSD was created just for the sake of making a propietory format, in other words, it was selish. Why go against the entire industry in making your own whole digital audio capturing method? At least that company has made other wonderful formats which have flourished much more.

Personally I don't really care about the 192kHz argument anymore, not like I used to. I do like 96kHz...but you must consider that very few people can probably detect the difference between 96 and 192, positive or negative.

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 06:49 PM

There are many audiophile labes which work with DSD-64 (or even DSD-128), DXD and PCM 96 kHz (or even 192 kHz); and there are many great analogue recordings. I love analogue and high resolution audio recordings... and I can hear the difference. That's why I love SACD, and that's why I would love to enjoy operas, live concerts, etc. with FULL HD IMAGE & SOUND.

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchglen

Funny, I feel that DSD was created just for the sake of making a propietory format, in other words, it was selish.

DSD was initially developed for archival purposes.

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

PCM 192 kHz/24-bit! When?

hopefully never.

Well, PCM 5.1 192 kHz/24-bit was one big reason why I chose BD over HD DVD.

HDJK · 03-23-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchglen

...
Personally I don't really care about the 192kHz argument anymore, not like I used to. I do like 96kHz...but you must consider that very few people can probably detect the difference between 96 and 192, positive or negative.

QFT. I think the industry should follow Dan Lavry's path and focus on improving 96/24. There is potential for distortion free transparent encoding right there. We don't need 192k.

HDJK · 03-23-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvda-sacd

Well, PCM 5.1 192 kHz/24-bit was one big reason why I chose BD over HD DVD.

5.1 in 48/24 PCM over 5.1 at 640kbs DD was mine

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDJK

We don't need 192k.

I do.

HDJK · 03-23-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhaase

I see Lionsgate doing that some time, they've been doing 7.1 PCM and I could see them working their way up to it.

I highly doubt it. If you look at the additional cost of a 192k production from start to finish (4 times the storage, 4 times the processing power) vs. the benefit (for the end user and the studio) it won't happen.
Maybe we'll see a music production at 192k in stereo or even MCH in the near future, but movies is a whole different animal.

crackinhedz · 03-23-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Well, PCM 5.1 192 kHz/24-bit was one big reason why I chose BD over HD DVD.

I whole heartedly agree that we should always push the limit...but the link gives you an excellent explanation on why 192kHz is not ideal, nor is it needed.

I can live with 96/24, heck the Dave Mathews BD rocked.

But audibly, 48/24 is plenty.

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDJK

Maybe we'll see a music production at 192k in stereo or even MCH in the near future, but movies is a whole different animal.

Of course, movies were not the aim of this thread.

HDJK · 03-23-2008, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvda-sacd

I do.

Fair enough

But (if we lived closer) I'd challange you to hear the difference between a good 96k converter and what's out there for 192k. Mind you, a real comparison is almost impossible, because as oppose to video you can't do a split screen or something, you have to stop the music, change the sampling frequency and you would need to be able to switch to the exact same performance recorded at the exact same microphone position at the higher SF. There is a lot of variables in there.

HDJK · 03-23-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvda-sacd

Of course, movies were not the aim of this thread.

Yes, but I quoted nhaase, who referenced Lionsgate movies. I understand the reason for your thread

dvda-sacd · 03-23-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

I whole heartedly agree that we should always push the limit...but the link gives you an excellent explanation on why 192kHz is not ideal, nor is it needed.

That is not new for me. However, I think even 192 kHz is not enough for a perfect sound reproduction. PCM sounds clearly digital to my ears.

DXD and DSD-128 are much closer to perfection, but still far from it.

03-23-2008, 02:46 PM	#1
dvda-sacd Member Member since:Sep 2006 Location:Spain	PCM 192 kHz/24-bit! When? When will we ever enjoy full high definition image plus 'full high resolution audio'?

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
What? A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, and 2001 24-bit PCM?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	jd213	10	03-18-2013 04:10 AM
PS3 Upsampling - Linear PCM 7.1 Ch. @ 176.4 kHz	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	kingofgrills	10	01-12-2009 07:13 PM
Any BD's with > 48 kHz 24 bit sampling rate?	Audio Theory and Discussion	King03	9	04-13-2008 04:49 AM
24-Bit PCM on Potter???	Blu-ray Movies - North America	ClaytonMG	15	12-12-2007 07:25 PM
Help Onkyo 7.1 ht-sr800 , Linear PCM 192 khz/24-bit D/A converters on all channels:	Home Theater General Discussion	Skold	1	10-05-2007 02:13 AM

03-23-2008, 03:12 PM	#3
nhaase Special Member Member since:Mar 2007 Trading Score:2	I see Lionsgate doing that some time, they've been doing 7.1 PCM and I could see them working their way up to it.

03-23-2008, 03:39 PM	#5
frenchglen Active Member Member since:Nov 2006	For the people who are intersted in high resolution audio, not many are interested in 192kHz, even 96kHz for some. And for movies, it will be rare to ever see anything above 48kHz (I would ,ike it though). The standard recording, mixing and mastering resolution amongst movie studios in 24-bit 48kHz. The 192kHz in blu-ray is more to allow for music/music-focused releases, which can definitely benefit from 96kHz, and 192kHz releases. But, for a digital recording, unless it's been recorded in 192kHz, they would only be oversampling it, which most agree would be pointless as you couldn't really impove. What's more, some believe that 192kHz starts to have some problems and think it's worse than 96kHz. By far the most important thing is for it to be lossless, and 24-bit. Not to mention good engineering, mixing and mastering by the people who do it. And, if it's 96kHz, you're in luck.

03-23-2008, 03:58 PM	#6
Vlad44 Active Member Member since:Oct 2007 Blu-ray reviews:29	industry made mistake by mistake. they had posibilities to enable hi-rez playback even on early cd/dvd devices. but instead the invented expencive n useless sacd, dvda and other proprietary shiit. who cares? average user need ONE device to play ALL formats available.

03-23-2008, 04:02 PM	#7
crackinhedz Super Moderator Member since:Feb 2007 Home Theater Gallery:10 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:19	PCM 192 kHz/24-bit! When? hopefully never. "A number of highly respected engineers know the push to 192KH is about manufacturers making money, not about scientific and engineering issues." - Dan Lavry

03-23-2008, 06:39 PM	#8
frenchglen Active Member Member since:Nov 2006	Yes, I have definitely seen that link before. The fact that the industry is even divided (in a wide enough ratio to call it that) shows that we truly do not know everything, and THAT, is an undisputable fact in itself. It reminds you of the DSD vs. PCM argument. Funny, I feel that DSD was created just for the sake of making a propietory format, in other words, it was selish. Why go against the entire industry in making your own whole digital audio capturing method? At least that company has made other wonderful formats which have flourished much more. Personally I don't really care about the 192kHz argument anymore, not like I used to. I do like 96kHz...but you must consider that very few people can probably detect the difference between 96 and 192, positive or negative.

03-23-2008, 06:49 PM	#9
dvda-sacd Member Member since:Sep 2006 Location:Spain	There are many audiophile labes which work with DSD-64 (or even DSD-128), DXD and PCM 96 kHz (or even 192 kHz); and there are many great analogue recordings. I love analogue and high resolution audio recordings... and I can hear the difference. That's why I love SACD, and that's why I would love to enjoy operas, live concerts, etc. with FULL HD IMAGE & SOUND.

Best iTunes Music Deals