Akira is 192khz, why not other movies?

[saprano]

I was reading the "AKIRA - Behind the Remaster" by our own great Jeff Kleist and was shocked to see that they used 192khz for the audio!
all bluray movies up until now have been only 48khz. so how come this movie uses it but no other? people say because we cant hear above 48khz anyway, but is that really the case? i would love for a movie to have at least 96khz.

[Jeff Kleist]

Because anything made after the late 80s was created digitally, and they're stuck at whatever res it was mastered at (48Khz/16-bit typically)

192Khz audio, even with THD takes up a GIGANTIC amount of space. Literally they use the entire audio space on Blu-ray on that disc.

The returns aren't usually worth it, basically a small amount of stuff made in the 80s with analog masters is the only material with enough fidelity to benefit from it. This was really a pet project by Mr. Yamashiro. Hopefully others will be inspired by it for other films, but I doubt you'll see people going over 48/24 very often.

[witheygull]

I would imagine some of the reasons 192kHz isn't used more often could be:

1) It is more expensive to produce.
2) It uses a lot of precious space on the disc.
3) Many people don't see the point of encoding audio tracks at a frequency imperceptible to human ears.
4) Home theater equipment that can take advantage of it is not common.

The first pressing of the blu-ray for Akira includes a booklet which has a wonderful essay by the film's music composer in which he discusses the 192kHz soundtrack. He describes the soundtrack as creating a "hypersonic effect" that stimulates the listener's brain even though the frequency of the sound is beyond what we can hear. He provides evidence from scientific experiments that he conducted (the guy is also a nueroscientist) which shows increased brain activity in the EEG readings of people experiencing the hypersonic effect.

Where it gets truly bizarre though is when he surveyed people after showing them the same part of the movie twice, switching between a DVD-quality soundtrack and the 192kHz track. Most of the study participants stated that the picture quality as well as the audio quality was better in the clip with the hypersonic audio track. The picture was unaltered between the two clips, but the viewers' perceptions of the picture was influenced by the quality of the audio.

I would love to see more 192kHz tracks produced, but I don't expect they'll become common anytime soon.

[Pirate King]

I believe that the highest frequences that we can hear are normally between 16k and 20k. So, for those of you who know, because I don't, how could I hear any difference between 48k and 192k. I am sure there is a difference, perhaps someone can explain it. Thanks

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by witheygull

I would imagine some of the reasons 192kHz isn't used more often could be:

1) It is more expensive to produce.
2) It uses a lot of precious space on the disc.
3) Many people don't see the point of encoding audio tracks at a frequency imperceptible to human ears.
4) Home theater equipment that can take advantage of it is not common.

The first pressing of the blu-ray for Akira includes a booklet which has a wonderful essay by the film's music composer in which he discusses the 192kHz soundtrack. He describes the soundtrack as creating a "hypersonic effect" that stimulates the listener's brain even though the frequency of the sound is beyond what we can hear. He provides evidence from scientific experiments that he conducted (the guy is also a nueroscientist) which shows increased brain activity in the EEG readings of people experiencing the hypersonic effect.

Where it gets truly bizarre though is when he surveyed people after showing them the same part of the movie twice, switching between a DVD-quality soundtrack and the 192kHz track. Most of the study participants stated that the picture quality as well as the audio quality was better in the clip with the hypersonic audio track. The picture was unaltered between the two clips, but the viewers' perceptions of the picture was influenced by the quality of the audio.

I would love to see more 192kHz tracks produced, but I don't expect they'll become common anytime soon.

You hit the nail right on the head and like the small piece of paper that comes with Akira it states and i quote

Both an AV amp and speakers compatible with 192kHz/24 bit sound, with reliable playback of frequencies up to 100kHz, are needed to enjoy the 5.1 ch. Dolby TrueHD Japanese audio in 192kHz/24 bit.

How many people can say they have these requirements?

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by Pirate King

I believe that the highest frequences that we can hear are normally between 16k and 20k. So, for those of you who know, because I don't, how could I hear any difference between 48k and 192k. I am sure there is a difference, perhaps someone can explain it. Thanks

According to Shoji Yamashiro (nueroscientist and composer of Akira's score), you will not hear a difference between a normal and ultra-high frequency audio track, but your brain will respond to the difference nonetheless. Yamashiro describes this as the "hypersonic effect."

This page has more details on the hypersonic effect and includes excerpts from Yamashiro's essay that was included in the first pressings of the Akira blu-ray.

[Jeff Kleist]

Like with higher resolution scans to be used on Blu-rays, every brain is different, so the higher the sampling frequency, the less is lost, and little bits and pieces make it through no matter what

The 192 track is the most airy and spacious mix I've ever heard. Even lossless blu-ray tracks from normal movies don't have the kind of bubble you experience

[zedd_117]

So, basically Akira is now a type of drug (kinda ironic ). That each brain responds to differently, but it sounds pretty trippy when you get the right response? Your having an "audio high" without even realizing it.

Man, I wanted to pick this up before, but now I'm going to scour the local earth to find a copy!

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by witheygull

I would imagine some of the reasons 192kHz isn't used more often could be:

1) It is more expensive to produce.
2) It uses a lot of precious space on the disc.
3) Many people don't see the point of encoding audio tracks at a frequency imperceptible to human ears.
4) Home theater equipment that can take advantage of it is not common.

The first pressing of the blu-ray for Akira includes a booklet which has a wonderful essay by the film's music composer in which he discusses the 192kHz soundtrack. He describes the soundtrack as creating a "hypersonic effect" that stimulates the listener's brain even though the frequency of the sound is beyond what we can hear. He provides evidence from scientific experiments that he conducted (the guy is also a nueroscientist) which shows increased brain activity in the EEG readings of people experiencing the hypersonic effect.

Where it gets truly bizarre though is when he surveyed people after showing them the same part of the movie twice, switching between a DVD-quality soundtrack and the 192kHz track. Most of the study participants stated that the picture quality as well as the audio quality was better in the clip with the hypersonic audio track. The picture was unaltered between the two clips, but the viewers' perceptions of the picture was influenced by the quality of the audio.

I would love to see more 192kHz tracks produced, but I don't expect they'll become common anytime soon.

Ok, I own Akira on DVD, but after reading this, I have to give it a try on BD. That's really interesting.

[ryoohki]

Akira used the Analog Master tape. Analog have don't have a Sampling Per Say but the closest digital sound to Analog is 192khz

[saprano]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

You hit the nail right on the head and like the small piece of paper that comes with Akira it states and i quote
How many people can say they have these requirements?

Not mines, my speakers only go from 57hz to 30khz. damn i didn't even realise that. people usually only look at the lowest frequency their speakers could handle. it wasn't until now that i checked the highest. but i think my receiver can handle that frequency. the ps3 goes up to 196khz, so what happens if check that option in the ps3?

[BD4Life]

Speaker frequency range is not the same thing as Sampling rate on sound mixes. For Akira, using 192KHz was most likely a choice due to the music, since it plays a huge part in the film. The sound effects are the same 1988 sound effects recorded in analog, but sound just as aged as it did before. But the music is where you hear the benefit. Switch back and fourth between Japanesse True HD and English True HD and you will hear a total difference. The music is live like in 192KHz (Because it was recorded on hi fiedlity analog tape) but the sound effects are aged.

For cinema, such as IMAX films, you may find uncompressed high sample rate mixes but not on 35MM or DCinema presentations or virtually any Hollywod movie due to legacy support not supporting the high sample rate. Movies with more channels and higher sample rates will yield a more realistic sound field and the higher the bit depth (24-Bit vs 16-Bit) is also ideal as it will give the sound mixer higher headroom to play with, which in the end gives us the loyal fan, a loud and enjoyable mix. Akira has a REALLY high level mix, much higher then Hollywood blockbusters mixed at a 24-Bit depth.

You can hear all the 192KHz glory of the TrueHD mix so long as you have a good set up and not small satallite speakers and a puny subwoofer. The smaller your speakers and Amplifier power are, the less impact the mix will have in your home theater/living room/bedroom etc...

[phantompwr]

some people on this thread really don't know what they are talking about.

Personally I don't believe that you can hear the difference with those higher sampling rates. I wouldn't discourage them, and it does make it a little easier for the analog to digital converters when you sample that high. I would rather see 32 bit floating point depth instead of 192kHz sampling rates, but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. I'm just happy we are getting 24 bit at least.

Just my 2 cents

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by Pirate King

I believe that the highest frequences that we can hear are normally between 16k and 20k. So, for those of you who know, because I don't, how could I hear any difference between 48k and 192k. I am sure there is a difference, perhaps someone can explain it. Thanks

192kHz is the sampling rate - not the upper frequency limit. I'm surprised at how often these things are confused.

BD4Life stated the case for 192kHz sampling really well above.

[ToEhrIsHuman]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

192kHz is the sampling rate - not the upper frequency limit. I'm surprised at how often these things are confused.

BD4Life stated the case for 192kHz sampling really well above.

yes...let's please end this confusion once and for all. 192kHz sampling means 192,000 "time slices" or samples of the waveform, whereas typical redbook CDs are sampled at 44.1kHz and typical BD audio at 48kHz (or 44,100 and 48,000 times per second respectively). This means for every one sample at 48kHz you are getting four samples at 192kHz, which would be more data per second and a more accurate representation of the original analog waveform. The stream also takes up roughly 4 times as much space on the disc too - less with lossless compression.

These numbers have absolutely nothing to do with audible frequencies, i.e. the pitch of sound (highs and lows).

I may rent this disc just to hear the audio.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

192kHz is the sampling rate - not the upper frequency limit. I'm surprised at how often these things are confused.

BD4Life stated the case for 192kHz sampling really well above.

Yeah, i did, sorry

Originally Posted by ToEhrIsHuman

yes...let's please end this confusion once and for all. 192kHz sampling means 192,000 "time slices" or samples of the waveform, whereas typical redbook CDs are sampled at 44.1kHz and typical BD audio at 48kHz (or 44,100 and 48,000 times per second respectively). This means for every one sample at 48kHz you are getting four samples at 192kHz, which would be more data per second and a more accurate representation of the original analog waveform. The stream also takes up roughly 4 times as much space on the disc too - less with lossless compression.

These numbers have absolutely nothing to do with audible frequencies, i.e. the pitch of sound (highs and lows).

I may rent this disc just to hear the audio.

Thanks for the explanation

[saprano]

Originally Posted by phantompwr

some people on this thread really don't know what they are talking about.

A little harsh there no?

[jkwest]

here's my bit of info....it sounds phenomenal! you can tell the audio is top-nutch...every sound is crystal clear and right on the mark of where it should be...I was blown away...you really outdid yourself wic..err...Mr. Kleist!!!

[Cordre69]

My setup can handle it. And it DID handle it. I can't even begin to describe how hard it was to pop in a stereo DVD afterwards!

[saprano]

Originally Posted by jkwest

here's my bit of info....it sounds phenomenal! you can tell the audio is top-nutch...every sound is crystal clear and right on the mark of where it should be...I was blown away...you really outdid yourself wic..err...Mr. Kleist!!!

He has nothing to do with the remaster