Blu-ray audio rates overkill?

[jeffm2016]

From a tech standpoint is the quality of a high end lossless audio on a good bluray overkill? Like if I have a decent full surround sound system like a def tech or klipsch decked out with all the speakers and killer receiver etc. would it fully use it all or would it give the same performance at half.

Im better with video technology than audio so im not qualified to figure this hypothetical out and just curious of how it fairs relativity compared to performance or where it could go if more was somehow possible.

[Bar81]

That set up you're describing won't even come close to getting everything out of a good lossless track. You can go into six figures on a setup and still be hearing new things/getting improved performance. But if you care more about video than audio (I'm the opposite) I'm sure you'll enjoy any well thought out system.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by jeffm2016

From a tech standpoint is the quality of a high end lossless audio on a good bluray overkill?

Why would it be overkill?

[jeffm2016]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Why would it be overkill?

For example. Dvd maxes out at 55 inches, although you can start to see the visual improvements in bluray at 55 inches you really start to notice it at 65 inches. 4k uhd without HDR, you might see a small amount if improvement in detail at 55 inches compared to bluray but not much if at all. 65 inches you’ll start to notice it over bluray but it will really start to shine at around 75 inches where blurays limits start to hit.

Hypothetically, you could say bluray is overkill at 45 (give or take) inches visually, since you really wont see the extra detail unless your sitting inordinately close. 4k uhd only you probably would hit overkill around 60 inches.

Using this as a metaphor for audio (no sure if youd measure it in mbps or what as an equivalent to inches on a screen to format as i presented but in audio) at what point would someone like me, who is willing to buy a nice system (as i stated above)but not crack the bank ...or simply at what poiny would I just get nothing more out of the audio giving equipment limitations.

Overkill doesnt intend to be critical of an audio format or the amount of potential in it..but in relation to what is actually used by the equipment.

Hope that made sense...if you wanted an example more concrete how much more do I get out of bluray audio than say amazons prime best downloads giving one is using a nice full system that isnt “high end” ( although id prefer a technical answer as well, curious about how to measure. I have been want to get into the audio side more and the understanding would help.

[alchav21]

I say it's all Subjective, both Video and Audio what is good for some people might be terrible to others. Get the best equipment for your budget, if that is enough and it pleases you then you are done. If not then you have to plan and budget for the upgrades.

[jeffm2016]

I appreciate you taking to time to answer.

However what im asking is more an intellectual interest than a practical one. Im not looking to maximize the data just realistically how much of the data one uses. Not sure how else to ask or reiterate.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Many home theater enthusiast want the best quality available and BD, UHD BD and Kaleidescape provides that. Many people seem to be quite satisfied ≤ 128 Kbps MP3 but some of us prefer better. We pay for our Pandora because the data rates are higher than the add version and it is acceptable at background levels. My rips of my CD's are FLAC for home use and 320 Kbps for auto use.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I say it's all Subjective, both Video and Audio what is good for some people might be terrible to others. Get the best equipment for your budget, if that is enough and it pleases you then you are done. If not then you have to plan and budget for the upgrades.

Says the guy only using wireless surround sound headphones.

[nissling]

Originally Posted by jeffm2016

Dvd maxes out at 55 inches, although you can start to see the visual improvements in bluray at 55 inches you really start to notice it at 65 inches.

Funny thing I have a Sony BVM-A14 in my studio (14" HD CRT) and the improvement when going from 480/60i or 576/50i to 1080/24PsF is clear as night and day. HDCAM still looks absolutely phenomenal in a professional enviroment. So saying that the improvement from Blu-Ray starts to become visible at 55" is... Nonsense.

[LexInHD]

It depends on your point of view. For most people, it's overkill and of no worth, as they don't have audio beyond the TV speakers or a low-end soundbar that can't handle lossless audio. Much like DVD, Blu-Ray was intended to push people to buy (TVs, A/V receivers and speakers, Home-Theater-In-A-Box sets) home theater gear, but it never happened beyond the brief hand-off from DVD during the early days of the format, so only the enthusiasts and people willing to spend money have benefited from it.

[David M]

I would be curious to do blind tests and see how many people were able to pick out lossless audio from mildly compressed lossy.

But no, it's not overkill on Blu-ray Disc, because you have 50-100gb to play with. It can easily store lossless audio. There's basically no reason not to include it for the audio track of a main feature.

LPCM 5.1 or higher would arguably be overkill.

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by David M

LPCM 5.1 or higher would arguably be overkill.

Is LPCM 5.1 better than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio?

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Is LPCM 5.1 better than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio?

All 3 are lossless formats. The PCM is uncompressed and the other 2 have lossless compression.

Which mix is better just comes down to which mix is better if there's any difference at all.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by jeffm2016

From a tech standpoint is the quality of a high end lossless audio on a good bluray overkill? Like if I have a decent full surround sound system like a def tech or klipsch decked out with all the speakers and killer receiver etc. would it fully use it all or would it give the same performance at half.

Im better with video technology than audio so im not qualified to figure this hypothetical out and just curious of how it fairs relativity compared to performance or where it could go if more was somehow possible.

You don’t need to spend thousands on speakers, but you do need to be able to critique speaker audio reproduction a bit to the point that you recognize audio sounds coming from speakers are realistic sounding without distortion or colorization. From listening to people speaking, fire engines racing to a fire, a drummer doing a fantastic drum solo, orchestra like being in front of you, all can make movie that much more than simply looking great on a 4K display. Just watching Stars Wars can come alive compared to a setup that can’t present audio decently.

As said def tech and klipsch are not great speakers, they both lack audio accuracy to sound great, but you won’t know until you have auditioned numerous speakers setups and observed how they work in a cohesive in various size rooms.

It’s a cool learning experience if you got the opportunity to experience this where you live with various dealers.

[crutzulee]

I've used the same mains for the past 30 years. With each new format, I've always sourced out timbrally matched sets as I've added channels to my setup. In that time, I've upgraded my amp 5 times-twice in the last year and a half.
While the old adage about garbage in and garbage out applies, I can definitely pick out a lossless track from a compressed one and would not characterize myself as an audiophile.
I've noticed it more with my last two receivers (ONKYO and now DENON). It never ceases to amaze my family that I'm always right when I stop a movie because I can tell that the audio is compressed either because there is no lossless track or because the "core" track has been selected.

[bhampton]

Clearly you are an audiophile. (by my own definition.)

My definition is someone who actively enjoys audio.
(Kind of like pays attention to it)

You look for the better soundtrack on discs and you have pardigm speakers so.... I say you are in.

[scififan73]

Originally Posted by crutzulee

I've used the same mains for the past 30 years. With each new format, I've always sourced out timbrally matched sets as I've added channels to my setup. In that time, I've upgraded my amp 5 times-twice in the last year and a half.
While the old adage about garbage in and garbage out applies, I can definitely pick out a lossless track from a compressed one and would not characterize myself as an audiophile.
I've noticed it more with my last two receivers (ONKYO and now DENON). It never ceases to amaze my family that I'm always right when I stop a movie because I can tell that the audio is compressed either because there is no lossless track or because the "core" track has been selected.

I'm the same way. After a few minutes of watching a film (usually a Warner's), i will go back to the main menu only to find that the track defaulted to lossy. Lossy definitely sounds muddy and indistinct next to a good lossless track. The difference should be quite noticeable upon switching back and forth.

[Anthony P]

I don't think the word overkill would be the right word (it has negative connotations that would not apply under these circumstances) but I get your point. For example if someone is deaf should they care for better audio? the easy answer is no, but on the other hand he could care because he watches films with others that are not deaf or he watches them attached to a bass shaker and he can feel the difference even if he can't hear it....

there are many reasons why someone might care (even though there is little/no benefit) and why someone else might not care (even if the benefit is large)

Now if we look at it objectively. I think a good analogy would be a bucket of water. It is easy to understand that if you fill the bucket you have a full bucket and if you fill it 3/4 you have a 3/4 bucket full. But what happens if the bucket has a small hole at the bottom? Let's say by the time the bucket that was full gets to where it is going it is now a bit under 1/2 full , but if you started with it 3/4 full by the time you get it there it will be a bit over 1/4 full. Maybe the difference won't be as large but there is always a benefit from starting with a bucket that is more full. For example (since you discussed video) it is why good studios will scan film at a higher resolution then is necessary for the release, quality can just be lost, not gained further down the line. So higher quality earlier on will almost always mean higher quality later on even if due to many different factors the difference might not be as great.

Also subjectively and IMHO the question does not make sense. when I first started collecting BDs I did not have a 1080p projector or 7.1 set-up (and DVD had 5.1 720p), BD3d I did not have a 3D projector and UHD BD I did not have a 4k projector or over head speakers. But time has passed and my set-up has gotten better and now I have all of that in my HT. A collection isn't just for now (no matter what media it is) but also for the future. So even if today someone has a crappy sound bar or TV speakers does it mean that it is impossible that one day he might want to watch it on a better system? I have never lived my life that way.

[kfbkfb]

http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic...g2.pdf#page=19
^^^
58kHz sampling rate, and
20-bit representation in a flat noise floor


That's what's needed for "audible transparency", anything more is overkill.


Kirk Bayne

[stonesfan129]

Use your ears. What do you hear? My subjective opinion is that Dolby Digital 5.1 640kbps is good enough.