Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman
Hmmm.... why not just take the original analog masters and re-master the dang thing in 24 bit/96 kHz PCM and then encode it on the disc as either 24/96 Dolby TrueHD or 24/96 DTS Master Audio? It's in the Blu-ray specs at up to 8 channels and up to 6 in 24/192. The 96 kHz upsampling from 48 kHz really isn't going to do a blessed thing and even if it did help a little bit you need a new processor that handles TrueHD upsampling.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there may have been a better way to handle it, but you stated that you assumed the TrueHD track was an old master dusted off the shelf because studios rarely use TrueHD anymore. It has to be a new master, because the Dolby 96k upsampling didn't exist before last year. Of course, it's possible that Warner just upsampled an old studio PCM master, but the reason the TrueHD codec was selected over DTS in this case was specifically due to the upsampling (which DTS doesn't offer). Had they not bothered with the upsampling, the disc probably would have been authored with DTS.
I demoed the 96k upsampling at Dolby headquarters last year. While some of the self-professed audiophiles in the audience were ecstatic about it, I'll be honest that I couldn't hear a damn bit of difference in most of the before-and-after examples, and I suspect most of the others probably couldn't either if challenged to a proper blind comparison. So, yeah, I share your skepticism on that regard.
However, that said, you don't need a new processor. The point of this upsampling is that it's done on the studio end before authoring, and will play back on your equipment like any other 96 kHz audio track (which most processors and A/V receivers should be able to handle without issue). Your processor doesn't do any upsampling itself. It can't tell the difference between this and a real 96 kHz track.Edited by Josh Z - 10/30/13 at 10:20am