Originally Posted by RBFilms
These are the real facts:
Up-Sampling is a detriment to Audio Quality.
Perhaps it is, but there is no evidence to prove ALL upsampling is detrimental. That, sir, is a real fact.
Not ALL Movies, Documentaries, and Music Concerts are recorded Analog. There are plenty that are recorded using Digital Capture. Most are produced, mixed and output at 48/24 using who knows what converters.
The point is that one must protect against aliasing when creating 48 kHz digital audio. That is a fact.
96/24 and 192/24 are very relevant to production of programming since the Blu-ray Format supports these audio formats but only some movies are utilizing this technology.
Exactly. That's why we are talking about movies that are not
recorded in 96 or 192 kHz.
96/24 is being used by some Producers today and the entire OP was about the benefit of higher sampling rates.
Not higher sample rates in general, but applying higher sample rates to 48 kHz movies in particular.
Based on what I stated above, my conversation about Analog to Digital Converters seems to be very relevant. Why aren’t more Producers transferring their “analog” recordings to 96/24 or 192/24?
Why not ask them? Probable answer: time and cost. They probably create the home video transfers starting with the same digital masters made for the D-Cinema release.
If "even" Dolby states 96/24 is better, something most engineers understand ... (and others supported way before Dolby ever did) ... and Blu-ray Disc supports 96/24 and 192/24 ... then why are my comments about Analog to Digital Converters "irrelevant."
It's O/T. This thread is about upsampling 48 kHz movies, not about general techniques and tools for audio recording. I'm sure there are other threads for that discussion.
I am also stating how I believe “Movie Soundtracks” are being mishandled now and how I believe they could be handled to achieve better sound quality. This seems to be the topic of discussion here.
Also, why Up-Convert when the Movie Makers can transfer their “Analog” recording using High Quality Analog to Digital Converters like EMM to begin with and avoid the “Unnecessary Processing” that Dolby seems to promote on a regular basis. Why isn't anyone promoting that approach which is a far superior technique and the right thing to do to begin with.
There are no analog masters these days. Analog sources, yes. But the mixing is done in DAWs and consoles at 48 kHz. The master is digital.
By Dolby “Up-Sampling” prior to the mastering / authoring process, they have destroyed the integrity of the original native source.
a) The upsampling is done only at the very end, in the Media Producer prior to TrueHD encoding, to create the disc file. The source master in the salt mine is not altered. b) Speaking of integrity, may I point out that you have shown no evidence whatsoever on which to claim anything was destroyed, yet you persist in such proclamations.
Once Dolby touches that signal by up-sampling it, the quality has been impacted forever.
Yes, for the better in this case, IMHO.
My point is that 3 years from now there may be better up-sampling technology in a consumer gear than anything Dolby is promoting now for professional use.
That would be in direct contradiction to your own "real fact": >>Up-Sampling is a detriment to Audio Quality.<< So, you actually concede that proper upsampling is not so bad after all?
The correct way to handle this is to give the consumer the best quality soundtrack as native and transparent to the original source as possible.
By giving the consumer the native format, they are better served by future improvements in technology instead of locked in to old and outdated up-sampling methods, techniques, and technology.
So we consumers should not have purchased VHS tapes as they failed to deliver the best quality? Or DVDs? Or AppleTV/Vudu/Amazon movie downloads? Or watch HBO? You seriously think Blu-ray is the end of the line? Seems we are perpetually locked in to old and outdated technology, at least until the next one comes along.
Dolby is promoting unnecessary processing by up-sampling 48/24 soundtracks to 96/24. I guess that is what I should have stated. I was trying to be nice.
You are trying to be clairvoyant. See next point.
I am happy to “prove” my point. Send me a Dolby Up-Sampling Box … I will be happy to perform a demonstration using analog content transferred to 48/24, 96/24, and 192/24 and compare it to 48/24 up-sampled to 96/24 using the Dolby box.
You know the outcome but have not actually done the test? I'm sure that with your public disdain for Dolby and its technologies, they would be quite eager to set you up with a test unit. Give Craig a call.
Case in point. The original Lake Systems box that dealt with Head Related Transfer Functions (HRTF) featuring Analog inputs, which I have, sounds far superior to the Dolby Headphone Surround Box that replaced it once Dolby purchased that technology. The limit of 48/24 and the digital processing in the box are the prime culprits for dumbing down the potential quality of the final output. Not that adding distortion ever sounds great, but Lake did it better.
How does this bear any relevance to this thread?
By the way, since you also seem misinformed on this Dolby topic, I will remain O/T to address it. Dolby never made or sold a Dolby Headphone box to replace the Lake unit -- which was a studio processor. Lake, however, designed a new, alternative embodiment of their headphone technology, working closely with Sanyo Semiconductor, that could fit in a small, low cost chip. That chip is used in a number of standalone headphone processors such as from Pioneer. However, the full DSP-based solution in the Tag McLaren AV32RDP and Denon processors always sounded better to me.
Lastly, Dolby (who now owns Lake) have developed successor Dolby Headphone technology, expanded to handle 7.1 channels.
Major companies like Dolby that have influence over the industry to improve sound quality should support and promote improvements that utilize the ability of current consumer formats to achieve a better entertainment experience. I understand that is what Dolby may “think” they are doing by promoting “Up-Sampling” of 48/24 sources, but I am sorry to say … I do not agree nor do I see this approach as a viable solution. Promoting the use of 96/24 and 192/24 transfers from Analog sources using quality Analog to Digital Converters and maintaining the integrity of that signal throughout the chain with minimal processing is a far better solution in my opinion.
Your opinions are duly noted.
Last but not least, I do not see nor do I recognize you as having any authority to “dismiss” my comments as “irrelevant” when the entire thread is about improving movie soundtracks and mentions 96/24 to begin with.
I was merely stating my opinions on your comments. There is no need to recognize me whatsoever.