Pink Floyd "Animals (2022 Atmos mix)" Blu-ray Audio incl. hi-res Dolby Atmos; 5.1 and stereo mixes (2018 remix)

[marpow]

If you are never going to invest in a Atmos enabled system, do not buy this 2024 release. The previous 2022 release is just fine.
Highly disappointed, very weak height activity.
I obviously am not on a poll thread as I want to explore more with different volumes.
So far seems like a money grab release.

There will be a new recorded menu song that is cool that you can get via the rip or listen to it via the hard disc.

I also have a question:
Both non Atmos audio choices are 2018 5.1, 2018 New Stereo and 1977 Original Stereo.

This disc offers a 24bit/192Khz Uncompressed. Lossless I presume, just never seen it written that way.
and a
DTS HD MSTR 24bit/96Khz Lossless as far as I know.

My direct question, what is the difference between there called Uncompressed and DTS HD MSTR?

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Also, a damn shame we still don't have a High Resolution remix of the original Quad mix.
An if it doesn't exist, mix one!

Oh, I think that'll be in the Atmos/5.1/Quad Blu Ray, releasing next year.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

This disc offers a 24bit/192Khz Uncompressed. Lossless I presume, just never seen it written that way.
and a
DTS HD MSTR 24bit/96Khz Lossless as far as I know.

My direct question, what is the difference between there called Uncompressed and DTS HD MSTR?

There is lossy compression and lossless compression. I don't have the disc yet, but I would assume the 24/192 uncompressed be might be LPCM.

The 24/96 DTS HD is compressed losslessly, like FLAC.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

My direct question, what is the difference between there called Uncompressed and DTS HD MSTR?

DTS-HD MA is a lossless audio format just like LPCM is a lossless audio format. It's just more efficient at compressing lossless audio into a smaller file size. Indeed, it's offers around the same lossless compression efficiency as flac

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Look there is an echo in here....

 

[bookofsaturdays]

My direct question, what is the difference between there called Uncompressed and DTS HD MSTR?

The “uncompressed” would be the PCM stream. (Should be) no difference other than for compatibility with older receivers.

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

Look there is an echo in here....

Oh yeah... You beat me by three minutes. I went to the kitchen to pour myself a coffee in-between writing my response!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The “uncompressed” would be the PCM stream. (Should be) no difference other than for compatibility with older receivers.

Well there is a difference between 24/192 and 24/96, if you're into that kind of thing.

 

[mrcond]

If anything, I have a tiny bit more respect for Roger's playing.

I take the wink to signify the great bass playing you hear is not, in fact, Roger, but David instead (at least on Pigs (3 Different Ones) as I understand it). And I agree!

 

[Sal1950]

Well there is a difference between 24/192 and 24/96, if you're into that kind of thing.

Sure, file size.
Nothing else if they came from the same master.

 

[marpow]

Thank you, if I have this correct?
No difference in lossless sound between LPCM and DTS HD MSTR, just size of file. In this case the 24/96 is equal to the 24/192?

Well there is a difference between 24/192 and 24/96, if you're into that kind of thing.

What would that be? To the ear?

I have read in other publications that anything over 24/48, if you had to buy it, presuming each higher Khz cost more money that 24/48 is good enough?

With the answers above, why on this Animals Blu Ray would they offer essentially two different lossless files one larger than the other, where there is no sound quality difference? Unless as @bookofsaturdays says for compatibility between home machines?

Certainly a good topic as I feel new and exclusive to the 2024 Animals release.
I understand what you all are saying, just not sure why they would do it.

 

[Guy Robinson]

With the answers above, why on this Animals Blu Ray would they offer essentially two different lossless files one larger than the other, where there is no sound quality difference? Unless as @bookofsaturdays says for compatibility between home machines?

Because of forums like this.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Thank you, if I have this correct?
No difference in lossless sound between LPCM and DTS HD MSTR, just size of file. In this case the 24/96 is equal to the 24/192?

What would that be? To the ear?

I have read in other publications that anything over 24/48, if you had to buy it, presuming each higher Khz cost more money that 24/48 is good enough?

With the answers above, why on this Animals Blu Ray would they offer essentially two different lossless files one larger than the other, where there is no sound quality difference? Unless as @bookofsaturdays says for compatibility between home machines?

Certainly a good topic as I feel knew and exclusive to the 2024 Animals release.
I understand what you all are saying, just not sure why they would do it.

Quadio provides 24/192 as well with it's releases. I'm sure there is a crowd out there that claims to be able to hear the difference. I can't. Perhaps they can with the right gear?. If I keep the bass management on, my gear is limited to 96khz sampling anyway. But those guys running full range stereo and high end stereo DACs that will process 192kHz will maybe claim to hear a difference. After all, nobody wants to spend high end money and say they can't hear a difference.

 

[DuncanS]

Thank you, if I have this correct?
No difference in lossless sound between LPCM and DTS HD MSTR, just size of file. In this case the 24/96 is equal to the 24/192?

What would that be? To the ear?

I have read in other publications that anything over 24/48, if you had to buy it, presuming each higher Khz cost more money that 24/48 is good enough?

With the answers above, why on this Animals Blu Ray would they offer essentially two different lossless files one larger than the other, where there is no sound quality difference? Unless as @bookofsaturdays says for compatibility between home machines?

Certainly a good topic as I feel knew and exclusive to the 2024 Animals release.
I understand what you all are saying, just not sure why they would do it.

A sample rate of 192KHz allows the Low Pass Filter roll-off to not be so steep, it also spreads the quantisation noise (due to the digitisation of the signal) over a much wider frequency range, which can/should improve the audio as it makes the digitisation error much smaller. By doing it, it also makes for a better filter design. Some people also find the slower filter roll-off 'beneficial to the perceived sound quality' at the top of the audio spectrum i.e. 20kHz and below. The 'catch is' that your Analogue-to-digital and Digital-to-analogue conversions still need to be 24-bit linear at the higher sample rate.

Rather too many people think its done to allow ultrasonic frequencies through (which we can't hear), its isn't, its done for solid electronic engineering reasons.

 

[marpow]

A sample rate of 192KHz allows the Low Pass Filter roll-off to not be so steep, it also spreads the quantisation noise (due to the digitisation of the signal) over a much wider frequency range, which can/should improve the audio as it makes the digitisation error much smaller. By doing it, it also makes for a better filter design. Some people also find the slower filter roll-off 'beneficial to the perceived sound quality' at the top of the audio spectrum i.e. 20kHz and below. The 'catch is' that your Analogue-to-digital and Digital-to-analogue conversions still need to be 24-bit linear at the higher sample rate.

Rather too many people think its done to allow ultrasonic frequencies through (which we can't hear), its isn't, its done for solid electronic engineering reasons.

Interesting and I can understand the concept.

 

[marpow]

Regarding the new Atmos Animals mix.
They should have called it Bad Animals, but Heart already has an album by that name .

 

[quadrifonico]

OK playing again now. No sub issues.

So you have no subwoofer issues with this release? My subwoofer sleeps off during the Atmos track

Weird because by memory I don't remember any other case where my subwoofer behaves in such a way. And if manually I turn it on I can clearly hear it...... But then it goes in sleep mode...I don't think it's a crossover problem, maybe I can solve simply by turning up LFE channel volume?

 

[Sal1950]

A sample rate of 192KHz allows the Low Pass Filter roll-off to not be so steep, it also spreads the quantisation noise (due to the digitisation of the signal) over a much wider frequency range, which can/should improve the audio as it makes the digitisation error much smaller. By doing it, it also makes for a better filter design. Some people also find the slower filter roll-off 'beneficial to the perceived sound quality' at the top of the audio spectrum i.e. 20kHz and below. The 'catch is' that your Analogue-to-digital and Digital-to-analogue conversions still need to be 24-bit linear at the higher sample rate.

That looks good on paper, but we don't listen to paper or theories.
In reality, no one has ever been able to reliably pick between a 24/48, 88, 96, 192 whatever when they were sampled from the exact same master. After all this time and research, you'd think someone would be able to produce the results of closely bias controlled listening tests to prove the value of ever higher sampling rates. Mark Waldreps two series of tests were enough to satisfy one of the best serious recording engineers in the business that we were mostly chasing unicorns.
YMMV
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993

 

[mandrix]

Weird because by memory I don't remember any other case where my subwoofer behaves in such a way. And if manually I turn it on I can clearly hear it...... But then it goes in sleep mode...I don't think it's a crossover problem, maybe I can solve simply by turning up LFE channel volume?

Wow, Man, no clue, really. I know my old sub from time to time benefits from a little wiggle of the RCA cord going in.
Or just unplugging/replugging. Pretty new cable too.

 

[JediJoker]

That looks good on paper, but we don't listen to paper or theories.
In reality, no one has ever been able to reliably pick between a 24/48, 88, 96, 192 whatever when they were sampled from the exact same master. After all this time and research, you'd think someone would be able to produce the results of closely bias controlled listening tests to prove the value of ever higher sampling rates. Mark Waldreps two series of tests were enough to satisfy one of the best serious recording engineers in the business that we were mostly chasing unicorns.
YMMV
https://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6993

192kHz is excessive, to be sure. 88.2/96kHz should not be discounted, however. Even if I can't actually hear a difference—and I'm sure I can't—the ability to use less steep anti-aliasing/reconstruction filters while retaining full audible bandwidth up to 20kHz is insurance I'm willing to pay for both in storage space and monetarily (to a point). This only applies to lossless encoding without finite data bandwidth restrictions, though. Lossy DTS should always be encoded at 16-bit/48kHz to maximize the use of its obligate 1.5mbps bandwidth by minimizing discarded audio data. And, of course, above all else: it's the source audio that matters. Poorly mixed and/or mastered audio will always sound bad, while the good stuff will always sound good (unless ruined by heavy lossy compression).