That Format would you use for Surround Music Downloads?
Multichannel mp3, Wma, AC3, DTS?

That Format would you use for Surround Music Downloads?
Multichannel mp3, Wma, AC3, DTS?

If those were the only choices, it would definitely be DTS.

If those were the only choices, it would definitely be DTS.
Not really sure what the OP is asking, but there IS lossless WMA. But I'm not sure if it works for multichannel; I think it does.

Not really sure what the OP is asking, but there IS lossless WMA. But I'm not sure if it works for multichannel; I think it does.

Multichannel Wma is not losless it about 300kbs but it could be played on any Windows Media Player.

WMA Lossless.
5.1 at 24/96, and it is completely lossless.
DTS would be a second choice, because unless we are talking DTS-HD MAS then it is a perceptual process & is throwing data away determined by an algorithm.
MP3 is an abomination.
AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital) is for movies, not music. It's almost as bad as MP3. You simply cannot toss out that much data & still seriously expect the mix to sound the same. It doesn't.

FLAC or decent-bitrate AAC.

I don't much like WMA. I don't have objective arguments for this, I just don't :P If, however, a certain multichannel album were to be only available in WMA losless, I'd still give it a try.

DTS would be a bit annoying because of the size and the relatively limited compatibility (finding a DTS plugin for you favorite audio player is usually kind of a pain).

As for AC3, I've got some albums in that format and I don't know if it's because of the production of the albums or because of the actual quality, but they just don't sound as nice as my other multichannel albums. So I probably wouldn't.

And MP3 is a joke. I don't even use it for stereo any more.

FLAC is not there for multichannel yet, is it?
If it were, it would be my format of choice for sure.
WMA Lossless is fine within it's limitations - 5.1 or 7.1 at 24/96 only.
Can't get 4.0 or 4.1 output, and can't seem to get 24/48 either.

AAC is as bad as MP3 IMHO. It's just another proprietary perceptual codec, as if anyone needed another one.

Neil, this should make your day:

You most definitely CAN do FLAC in multichannel!
Hell, I even converted a few MLP tracks to multichannel FLAC recently, just to see if I could. (And yes, it is now possible, though it's a pain in the ass :D)

Neil, this should make your day:

You most definitely CAN do FLAC in multichannel!
Hell, I even converted a few MLP tracks to multichannel FLAC recently, just to see if I could. (And yes, it is now possible, though it's a pain in the ass :D)

Details are in order. :)
I am NOT interested in MLP to FLAC, just taking monos and making a multichannel file that could be converted back to wav. :)

Neil, this should make your day:

You most definitely CAN do FLAC in multichannel!
Hell, I even converted a few MLP tracks to multichannel FLAC recently, just to see if I could. (And yes, it is now possible, though it's a pain in the ass :D)

I'm not bothered about MLP>FLAC (Although decoding MLP is simple enough to do)
Where do I go get a Multichannel FLAC?
Will they allow me to include the decoder/player in a ROM folder on a DVD along with the files?
Will it work cross-platform?
So many questions, but this has indeed made my day! Great News.

I'm not bothered about MLP>FLAC (Although decoding MLP is simple enough to do)
Where do I go get a Multichannel FLAC?
Will they allow me to include the decoder/player in a ROM folder on a DVD along with the files?
Will it work cross-platform?
So many questions, but this has indeed made my day! Great News.

"Decoding MLP is simple enough to do?" D:
It took me over a year to finally run into the tools to do it, and even then they were of the shady kind and it took me half an hour just to convert one song :P

Anyway, I could tell you about FLAC's multichannel capabilities, but those other questions are a bit beyond my area of expertise, I'm just a simple computer user with a love for music, after all. Maybe you should ask the FLAC people directly?

Multichannel FLAC is easy to make, though. Just visit the FLAC site (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) and point your favorite encoder to the executable (I prefer foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) for my general playing/conversion purposes). Foobar automatically produces multichannel output when the input file is multichannel (unless I tell it not to) so it's really not hard.

I have no idea about Mac support, but I can't imagine FLAC NOT being supported. My best friend is a fervent Mac user, so when I see her, I'll ask her if she knows. Google might know, also.

Details are in order. :)
I am NOT interested in MLP to FLAC, just taking monos and making a multichannel file that could be converted back to wav. :)

The mono-waves > multichannel wave phase of the process was done using WaveWizard ([QUOTE=boondocks;11428464]Details are in order. :)). You should probably give it a try.

"Decoding MLP is simple enough to do?" D:
It took me over a year to finally run into the tools to do it, and even then they were of the shady kind and it took me half an hour just to convert one song :P

Just use SurCode's MLP Lossless ENcoder as a DEcoder.
Okay, you still need to demux the AOB files, but decoding straight MLP is simple enough. It's demuxing AOB files that stumps me.

Anyway, I could tell you about FLAC's multichannel capabilities, but those other questions are a bit beyond my area of expertise, I'm just a simple computer user with a love for music, after all. Maybe you should ask the FLAC people directly?

Multichannel FLAC is easy to make, though. Just visit the FLAC site (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) and point your favorite encoder to the executable (I prefer foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) for my general playing/conversion purposes). Foobar automatically produces multichannel output when the input file is multichannel (unless I tell it not to) so it's really not hard.

I have no idea about Mac support, but I can't imagine FLAC NOT being supported. My best friend is a fervent Mac user, so when I see her, I'll ask her if she knows. Google might know, also.



The mono-waves > multichannel wave phase of the process was done using WaveWizard ([QUOTE=boondocks;11428464]Details are in order. :)). You should probably give it a try.

As far as Foobar goes - never again, as it is easy to produce illegal files with this. I have decoded DTS files, and produced a multichannel interleave that just would not pass in any application at all. So I wonder where else they are cutting corners? It's not worth my while - besides, I now have a proper, DTS supplied command line decoder whilst waiting for the StreamPlayer to actually be enabled in the new MAS encoder.

FLAC is supposed to be multichannel, but I have no real idea how to go use it - up to my neck in authoring projects right now (watching blue lines move across screens at this point, hence why I have time to annoy everyone here)
but will certainly get back onto this one for the next set of "unofficial" titles we are making.
It's been really hard getting good info from Mac users - I know close to zero about them, or the OS, so have no idea at all. What I am really hoping to find is a lossless multichannel format that will (preferably) play on both platforms.
FLAC will not play, as there are apparently no Multichannel FLAC players on PC or MAC. I cannot create my own as I would not know where to start. So this leaves me with the possibility (I will check with the project coders) of creating FLAC files in 5.1 or 4.0 or 4.1, and then including (in ROM content) the installers or decoders for each platform.
If this is not possible, then I think that I will have to abandon the idea of Mac compliance in favour of the only other lossless PC based codec I know of - WMA Lossless.
Trouble is this is far from without problems, as it is 2.0 or 5.1 only, with nowhere in-between. So for Quad, I would be wasting time with 2 empty channels.

I'm still really hoping for FLAC - and now I am off to the site, as the current DVD-A project is encoding DTS streams for the bonus video material.

Just use SurCode's MLP Lossless ENcoder as a DEcoder.
Okay, you still need to demux the AOB files, but decoding straight MLP is simple enough. It's demuxing AOB files that stumps me.

Yeah, that's what I did. The actual ripping was done with DVDFab HD and DVDAExplorer (just enter "MLP tools" in your favorite B ittor rent search engine), but the problem is you only get to rip one song at a time, and the whole Surcode business takes too much time for my tastes and the resulting FLAC is too big for my purposes, so I'm sticking with my AAC files for now (yes I know, lossy, yuck).

FLAC will not play, as there are apparently no Multichannel FLAC players on PC or MAC. I cannot create my own as I would not know where to start.
Waitwaitwait. You keep saying that, but I know for a FACT that foobar does play 5.1 FLAC on PC, and it wouldn't surprise me if WinAmp could do it too (with a plugin).
As for the illegal files foobar produced, the DTS decoder for foobar is a third party plugin that was quickly withdrawn because of legal issues, so it's possible it wasn't totally bug-free yet. I convert to AAC all the time and haven't had any problems so far. They play on iPods and my W950i phone alike, but they're stereo, obviously. My 5.1 AAC files play just fine on my PC, but I only use foobar to play them, so that's not a real indication...
Like I said, no idea about Mac just yet. And let's not forget Linux users :D

Yeah, that's what I did. The actual ripping was done with DVDFab HD and DVDAExplorer (just enter "MLP tools" in your favorite B ittor rent search engine), but the problem is you only get to rip one song at a time, and the whole Surcode business takes too much time for my tastes and the resulting FLAC is too big for my purposes, so I'm sticking with my AAC files for now (yes I know, lossy, yuck).

I had heard about DVDFab HD being able to decode an AOB before, but not really registered the information in brain. I'll go buy a copy, methinks.

Waitwaitwait. You keep saying that, but I know for a FACT that foobar does play 5.1 FLAC on PC, and it wouldn't surprise me if WinAmp could do it too (with a plugin).
As for the illegal files foobar produced, the DTS decoder for foobar is a third party plugin that was quickly withdrawn because of legal issues, so it's possible it wasn't totally bug-free yet. I convert to AAC all the time and haven't had any problems so far. They play on iPods and you W950i phone alike, but they're stereo, obviously. My 5.1 AAC files play just fine on my PC, but I only use foobar to play them, so that's not a real indication...
Like I said, no idea about Mac just yet. And let's not forget Linux users :D

I was only quoting what I have been told by someone else - this is second-hand information on FLAC and what you are saying is news to me. Good news though.
It's the Mac support that is the constant sticking point for me - I really would like this to be cross-platform if at all possible as the last thing I want is to include 2 sets of files for computer playback.
As far as Linux users go, we may as well carry this conversation on in Hungarian.
The point is to try & find a way of including desktop playback for all platforms with a single set of files. (I have asked the FLAC developers about including decoders, so if worst-case scenario happens users will just have to decode the beasts themselves).
WMA is flawed because of the 5.1 format - they cannot (apparently) create a 4.0 or a 4.1 set - it must be 5.1 (I do not know if 2 empty channels take up space or not, or if there may be channel assign issues). This is also true of FLAC - do the assigns carry through?

I had heard about DVDFab HD being able to decode an AOB before, but not really registered the information in brain. I'll go buy a copy, methinks.
http://www.dvdfab.com/free.htm
Keyword: FREE :D


WMA is flawed because of the 5.1 format - they cannot (apparently) create a 4.0 or a 4.1 set - it must be 5.1 (I do not know if 2 empty channels take up space or not, or if there may be channel assign issues). This is also true of FLAC - do the assigns carry through?

Err... Was that Hungarian? :) "Channel assigns" is like "channel order"? If that's your question then the channel mappings seems to be preserved, yes, but I can't tell you for sure because I haven't done any extensive testing. The only MC FLAC files I made were those tracks I converted from MLP and they seemed fine as far as channel mapping's concerned. From the FLAC format page (http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html):

Channel assignment

* 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. Where defined, the channel order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows:
o 1 channel: mono
o 2 channels: left, right
o 3 channels: left, right, center
o 4 channels: left, right, back left, back right
o 5 channels: left, right, center, back/surround left, back/surround right
o 6 channels: left, right, center, LFE, back/surround left, back/surround right
o 7 channels: not defined
o 8 channels: not defined
* 1000 : left/side stereo: channel 0 is the left channel, channel 1 is the side(difference) channel
* 1001 : right/side stereo: channel 0 is the side(difference) channel, channel 1 is the right channel
* 1010 : mid/side stereo: channel 0 is the mid(average) channel, channel 1 is the side(difference) channel
* 1011-1111 : reserved

Don't know if this is what you're asking about, though. Like I said, I'm not a professional :)

Oh, and about not trusting foobar2000, you can simply use flac.exe as a command-line tool, I think, so you won't even have to put your trust in anything but FLAC...

That's exactly what I'm after.
Top info.

Also had no idea that DVDfab HD was a freebie.
Time to deal with all the DVD-A here that are now out of print.

Glad I could help ^.~
It's always an honour to be useful to "the guy who works with Porcupine Tree". I mean seriously, they're like the best band in the world D:

You can create an interleaved multichannel wav file, then encode it with flac. Some software players will not get the channel assignments right on playback, however.(whether flac or wav, waveformatextensible/not).
The size works out to about 50-60% larger than a DTS encoded multichannel file with the limited testing I did.

Used purely as a transport medium, the multichannel file could be converted back to wav and then demuxed into separate monos if one wished to recode to some other format for playback on the HT system.

I THINK the flac encoder will only do 16bit for multi. I know it definitely doesn't do 32 bit float.

The size works out to about 50-60% larger than a DTS encoded multichannel file with the limited testing I did.
Truth.
However, a multichannel FLAC file seems to be roughly as large as an MLP file, with the added bonus that people can actually play it.

I THINK the flac encoder will only do 16bit for multi. I know it definitely doesn't do 32 bit float.
I'm pretty sure it can do 24bit. The songs I encoded were from the No-Man DVD-A, so Neil probably knows best what format that was exactly. I seem to recall that the resulting flac's resolution was the same as the original mlp file....

......
I'm pretty sure it can do 24bit. The songs I encoded were from the No-Man DVD-A, so Neil probably knows best what format that was exactly. I seem to recall that the resulting flac's resolution was the same as the original mlp file....

I'll have to test that, but it probably does. Not sure what sample rate it will
support, I only tried 44.1 Khz IIRC.

I just tried converting a track off the only 96Khz DVDA I own, which is the unofficial Dark Side of the Moon DVDA that's been floating about. The problem is, though, that it's a 4.1 album and not your usual 5.1. I don't know if that's what's causing trouble, but I can't get it to decode using the Surcode MLP trick. It just pops up the verification log immediately without actually decoding the MLP track.

My other DVDAs are apparently all 48Khz, so I just decided to encode my dummy 96/24 wave files to FLAC to see if that would work. I had to use the "--channel-map=none" switch like before, I don't remember why this is and I don't know if there's a cleaner way to do it, but it seems to work. Anyway, the encoder did start and the resulting file is indeed a 96Khz/24bits FLAC file, only it's one second long silence so I can't really tell if it's working correctly :p

If anyone has other 5.1 96/24 source material and wants to give it a try, feel free :D

Anyway, I did another FLAC encode based on one of my 48/24 DVDAs and here are the results:
Input file: Packed PCM 48000 Hz 24bit, channel assignment: (Group 1) Lf Rf Ls Rs (Group 2) C LFE, 125MB
Output file: FLAC 48000Hz 24bit 6ch, channel assignment: Lf Rf C LFE Ls Rs, 123MB

After decoding with Surcode, I used the latest Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) beta to join the three stereo files into one 6ch wave file. Audacity is free and much more awesome than it looks when you turn on the 'Use advanced mixing option' in the File Formats portion of the Preferences menu. Goodbye WaveWizard.
The command line switches passed through foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) to encode this file to flac were "-s -8 - -o %d --channel-map=none".

Hope this is of use to someone. I had fun, anyway :p

My conclusion is still the same, though. For my purposes, hi-res FLAC files are prohibitively large. On my cheapo speaker setup (4.1 Altec Lansing something), I can't hear the difference between these 48/24 FLAC files and my usual ~450kbps 48/16 Nero AAC files anyway, and the AAC files are almost ten times smaller. Maybe I'll get a better setup someday, but right now I just can't hear enough of a difference to make up for the loss of space.

I just tried converting a track off the only 96Khz DVDA I own, which is the unofficial Dark Side of the Moon DVDA that's been floating about. The problem is, though, that it's a 4.1 album and not your usual 5.1. I don't know if that's what's causing trouble, but I can't get it to decode using the Surcode MLP trick. It just pops up the verification log immediately without actually decoding the MLP track.

My other DVDAs are apparently all 48Khz, so I just decided to encode my dummy 96/24 wave files to FLAC to see if that would work. I had to use the "--channel-map=none" switch like before, I don't remember why this is and I don't know if there's a cleaner way to do it, but it seems to work. Anyway, the encoder did start and the resulting file is indeed a 96Khz/24bits FLAC file, only it's one second long silence so I can't really tell if it's working correctly :p

If anyone has other 5.1 96/24 source material and wants to give it a try, feel free :D

Anyway, I did another FLAC encode based on one of my 48/24 DVDAs and here are the results:
Input file: Packed PCM 48000 Hz 24bit, channel assignment: (Group 1) Lf Rf Ls Rs (Group 2) C LFE, 125MB
Output file: FLAC 48000Hz 24bit 6ch, channel assignment: Lf Rf C LFE Ls Rs, 123MB

After decoding with Surcode, I used the latest Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) beta to join the three stereo files into one 6ch wave file. Audacity is free and much more awesome than it looks when you turn on the 'Use advanced mixing option' in the File Formats portion of the Preferences menu. Goodbye WaveWizard.
The command line switches passed through foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) to encode this file to flac were "-s -8 - -o %d --channel-map=none".

Hope this is of use to someone. I had fun, anyway :p

My conclusion is still the same, though. For my purposes, hi-res FLAC files are prohibitively large. On my cheapo speaker setup (4.1 Altec Lansing something), I can't hear the difference between these 48/24 FLAC files and my usual ~450kbps 48/16 Nero AAC files anyway, and the AAC files are almost ten times smaller. Maybe I'll get a better setup someday, but right now I just can't hear enough of a difference to make up for the loss of space.

I created a stereo to 6 channel conversion and got my 6 mono waves @ 24 bit / 96Khz. Created an interleaved file and encoded to flac using the Flac frontend. It only likes waveformatextensible, at least for multichannel files, on my test.
File size of interleaved wav file: 320,204 KB.
File size of interleaved flac file : 164,102 KB.
Plays fine with Foobar. But, still a large file.
Interesting test, but not much use to me since I use either DTS or MLP anyway.

I just tried converting a track off the only 96Khz DVDA I own, which is the unofficial Dark Side of the Moon DVDA that's been floating about. The problem is, though, that it's a 4.1 album and not your usual 5.1. I don't know if that's what's causing trouble, but I can't get it to decode using the Surcode MLP trick. It just pops up the verification log immediately without actually decoding the MLP track.

My other DVDAs are apparently all 48Khz, so I just decided to encode my dummy 96/24 wave files to FLAC to see if that would work. I had to use the "--channel-map=none" switch like before, I don't remember why this is and I don't know if there's a cleaner way to do it, but it seems to work. Anyway, the encoder did start and the resulting file is indeed a 96Khz/24bits FLAC file, only it's one second long silence so I can't really tell if it's working correctly :p

If anyone has other 5.1 96/24 source material and wants to give it a try, feel free :D

Anyway, I did another FLAC encode based on one of my 48/24 DVDAs and here are the results:
Input file: Packed PCM 48000 Hz 24bit, channel assignment: (Group 1) Lf Rf Ls Rs (Group 2) C LFE, 125MB
Output file: FLAC 48000Hz 24bit 6ch, channel assignment: Lf Rf C LFE Ls Rs, 123MB

After decoding with Surcode, I used the latest Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) beta to join the three stereo files into one 6ch wave file. Audacity is free and much more awesome than it looks when you turn on the 'Use advanced mixing option' in the File Formats portion of the Preferences menu. Goodbye WaveWizard.
The command line switches passed through foobar2000 (http://www.foobar2000.org/) to encode this file to flac were "-s -8 - -o %d --channel-map=none".

Hope this is of use to someone. I had fun, anyway :p

My conclusion is still the same, though. For my purposes, hi-res FLAC files are prohibitively large. On my cheapo speaker setup (4.1 Altec Lansing something), I can't hear the difference between these 48/24 FLAC files and my usual ~450kbps 48/16 Nero AAC files anyway, and the AAC files are almost ten times smaller. Maybe I'll get a better setup someday, but right now I just can't hear enough of a difference to make up for the loss of space.

Then one of 3 things has happened here.
1 - You're using a buggy version of the MLP Encoder with a bug in it. Mine works.
2 - You have not set the encoder options to verify after encoding, but instead have it set to verify on the fly.
3 - You did not create the test stream to the correct channel assigns - 4.1 - to create a 4.1 MLP stream, a perfectly valid assignment.
What is causing your problem - to be blunt - is not understanding how the software you (presumably) paid $2500 for works. Strange.
It's also odd that you can spend $2500 on an MLP encoder, but not have a decent set of proper speakers recommended for DVD-A & SACD & Multichannel in general, ie full range & not satellite/subwoofer setup - which would certainly enable you to clearly hear the difference between AAC & FLAC!

It's also odd that you can spend $2500 on an MLP encoder, but not have a decent set of proper speakers recommended for DVD-A & SACD & Multichannel in general, ie full range & not satellite/subwoofer setup - which would certainly enable you to clearly hear the difference between AAC & FLAC!

Educational purposes only. I just wanted to see if it was at all possible to decode DVD-A. Now that my curiosity is satisfied, I'll happily continue listening to my lossy AAC tracks. By the time I have a decent speaker setup, I'll probably have a DVD-A capable player anyway.

... which leads me to the following observation: your goal is to include hi-res multichannel audio on DVD-A discs so people can listen to them on their computers, right? But people who have a dedicated DVDA-player most likely don't have the required hardware on their PCs since they use their main setup for music anyway. And people who don't have a DVDA-player at all are even less likely to have awesome surround speakers hooked to their computers... Or do you see this differently?

Educational Purposes only, eh?

My goal if including multichannel audio in lossless form for desktop playback is so that those who have the right gear can play the WMA lossless/MLP streams.
I also include DD & DTS for those who cannot.
This way, all qualities are there on a single disc.
It's far, far better to start at highest quality than to assume "most cannot decode it, so what is the point".
There are also a lot of people running server based home surround setups, with Media Centre systems controlling the playback of SD DVD, HD DVD, DVD-A, Music DVD, desktop music etc. yet thanks to the thieves, software DVD-A players are now seriously thin on the ground (see the person who hacked WinDVD's CPPM decoders for the reason why. CPPM was always based on a revokable key system, and compromised keys got revoked, as promised. So WinDVD7 was hobbled, then ruined, and WinDVD8 will not play DVD-A at all. So including desktop lossless streams is a good idea IMHO.)

Actually, a media center PC that can handle all the formats you mentioned is pretty much my wet dream and life's purpose (okay, that's a bit of a hyperbole), so I actually highly applaud your efforts to provide accessible high-res audio. I look forward to seeing high-res FLAC files on the next Porcupine Tree album :D

As for the WinDVD-thing, I agree that the outcome of the whole story is pretty depressing, but I (and I know I'm treading explosive territory here) don't blame the hackers but the copy protection paranoia in itself.
No matter how complex and expensive your protection system is, it's going to get cracked for sure. This is pretty much a fact. And once it's been cracked the first time, it's too late to take action since those who feel so inclined will be able to get the product from some P2P channel, and the download will be protection-free. So the only thing strong copy protections do is cause problems for the honest user, dishonest ones always find a way around them.

I actually do speak from experience, I've had various (legally purchased) games do weird things to my PC because of the copy protection system, and that one copy controlled Depeche Mode album is sitting on my shelf gathering dust because I couldn't include it in my music collection on my hard disc.

But this thread wasn't about pirating and copy protection in the first place. Those discussions often turn out to be very long and very frustrating :)

I'm never going to dispute the CP issues you raise - I was only pointing out why desktop playback is, IMHO, important. And FLAC ain't gonna be on FOABP - I had a hard enough time fitting everything on the disc to start with, given the complete album in MLP 5.1, MLP 2.0, DTS 5.1, 24-48 LPCM 2.0 and 4 bonus tracks in MLP 5.1 & DTS 5.1, and finally almost 30 minutes of films again in 24-48 stereo & DTS 5.1.
This puppy will be great VFM!

I honestly believe that downloading does not really harm sales.
Downloaders tend to fall into 2 categories, I believe:
1 - Those who download to test out, then go buy. I do this myself.
2 - Those who will never buy anyway, so the download is not a lost sale.
okay - there is a great argument that those who serially download will pass the copies around - just like we used to with tapes way back when I were a lad & the town hall was a chip shop. The problem with digital is that we can now make perfect copies. With analogue systems there was always generational loss. Perfect copies = never any degradation (as long as the copy is made properly, of course, and not - as it often is - subject to perceptual processing. There is no loss here at all, and these downloads should be ignored. Home taping did not kill music in the 70's despite all the dire warnings on album liners. And illegal MP3 trading ain't gonna do it now, either.

I fully agree with you - all CP does is prevents "casual" copying. The real worry are the factories in East Europe, China, Singapore etc that pump out millions of discs that get sold everywhere.
I have no idea how to stop this.
Another real killer is the disgraceful way content is created - the brutal brickwall limiting in the name of volume is another serious worry to me.

BUT - time to call this line a day, methinks. These discussions are always circular, and usually full of pathetic self-justification.
All I am trying to do is find a way to produce a truly universal disc in High Resolution - and I will never give up.

Good luck! I'm already drooling over the FoaBP DVD-A :D

Educational Purposes only, eh?

My goal if including multichannel audio in lossless form for desktop playback is so that those who have the right gear can play the WMA lossless/MLP streams.
I also include DD & DTS for those who cannot.
This way, all qualities are there on a single disc.
It's far, far better to start at highest quality than to assume "most cannot decode it, so what is the point".
There are also a lot of people running server based home surround setups, with Media Centre systems controlling the playback of SD DVD, HD DVD, DVD-A, Music DVD, desktop music etc. yet thanks to the thieves, software DVD-A players are now seriously thin on the ground (see the person who hacked WinDVD's CPPM decoders for the reason why. CPPM was always based on a revokable key system, and compromised keys got revoked, as promised. So WinDVD7 was hobbled, then ruined, and WinDVD8 will not play DVD-A at all. So including desktop lossless streams is a good idea IMHO.)


Noble adventure, for sure.
You are right about the software players. I have 2 that will play MLP; WINDVD6 & the Creative DVDA player. I know you are not a fan of Creative, but my Audigy 2ZS card has served me well. Besides, I do my "real" listening on the HT, in spite of having my soundcard patched to a receiver in my 'work' room.
My question is this: what/whose music is it you plan to distribute in the manner of your quest?

EDIT: MLP is fine, but does not provide a super great reduction in file size. Suitable for DVD,yes.