Topic: Does anyone make high def audio discs in stereo?

[Swampy]

Hey all. So I was listening to some records today and it got me thinking. Does anyone put out high def (24 bit ect...) versions of albums in stereo? I'd really love to listen to some better quality stuff, but I don't have 5.1. Anyone know? Probbaly not? Thanks!

[anodyne33]

Aren't DVD-A 24 bit capable?

[JasonSobel]

Aren't DVD-A 24 bit capable?

yes DVD-A certainly does 24 bit.  I think the question was this:  most commercially available DVD-A discs are geared and marketed toward surround sound.  are there any commercially available discs with just 2 track stereo 24/96 or 24/48 tracks ??

that's a good question.  my guess is that there has to be some releases with both stereo PCM and surround.  but offhand, I don't know of any.

I bought the dual-disc for Miles Davis Kind of Blue, hoping that the DVD side would be hi-res.  but it's just at 16 bit, 48 kHz.  yes, I know that's slightly better than the 16/44.1 version on the CD side, but it's not the 24 bit that I was hoping for...


edited for spelling

[Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)]

I've got On The Beach by Neil Young. 24 bit stereo only I believe. Also have Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Think that has 5.1 and 2.0.

[Nick's Picks]

i believe many dvda's have a 2.0 24/192 PCM segment as well as 5.1

[bgalizio]

I'll have to check, but I believe all my DVD-A and SACD studio releases that have surround tracks also have a separate stereo track.

[Swampy]

Thanks everyone! This is making me happy!

[shane]

As stated before most high rez formats have both surround and stereo mixes on them.  My Talking Heads box set have both 5.1 and 2.0 as well as Beck's Sea Change DVD-A.  The Neil Young DVD-A releases are all two channel only save for Harvest which has surround and stereo I believe.  I also just purchased all of Peter Gabriel's catalog released in SACD and they are all stero.  I wish more stuff was released in these formats in stereo.  Its ot so much that I find surround mixes annoying, its more like I only have two speakers and don't want any more.

Shane

[Nick's Picks]

Two ears, two mics, two channels.

the elder hath spoken

[spott]

I've got to plug the Beck, Sea Change DVD-A, probably one of the best DVD-A's I've got (also listening 2.0).  Great, great, great stuff

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

I've got a couple of Panic DVDAs and a Diana Krawl DVDA that are 2 channel 24/96.

They sound great.

[cshepherd]

Can someone explain the point of a 5.1 audio mix for a studio CD or live concert performance?  What actually goes into the rear channels' mix? 

Chris

[Swampy]

Can someone explain the point of a 5.1 audio mix for a studio CD or live concert performance?  What actually goes into the rear channels' mix? 

Chris

Not that I've heard a lot, but I've heard some hanging out at other's houses... A lot of the live stuff that I have heard is kind of AUD in the two rear channels, kind of gives it a live feel. The studio stuff that I've heard in 5.1 is kind of cool, like Gaucho (Steely Dan) has some cool horns and backup vox and stuff in the rears. When I first heard it it was a lot less segmented sounding than I thought it would, but is still IMO gimmicky. I would rather listen to stuff that was originally made for stereo in stereo. Maybe stuff that is recorded to be in 5.1 could be cool?

[BC]

IMHO for movies surround makes sense, less so for music where, again IMHO, to be realistic the surrounds would be more for ambience. I could buy the idea that the center channel could benefit in solidifying the center image though. (though I have to say that I get a pretty damn good center image from my 2-channel main speakers).

I personally do not really want to hear instruments coming from behind me, I can see it from the viewpoint of album production being akin to crafting a piece of artwork, where sound effects coming from the surround channels are part of the "big artistic picture" for lack of better description. But for me when I listen to an album at home I prefer to have a realistic "concert" perspective, meaning all the main sound in the front channels and the rears just for conveying the reflected sound and ambience of the place. Maybe then the acoustic differences between a ampitheater, church, and small club could be more accurately conveyed. But here, I wonder about the effectiveness of this when the final surround mix will be played back in a huge variety of environments and rooms with widely varying room dimensions and speaker placement. Just thinking out loud...

[BC]

Two ears, two mics, two channels.

why not 2 TV's then? Sorry, couldn't resist.      

[Gutbucket]

I find surround useful only when the surround channels are turned way down in level so that they aren't directly noticable; ie. I only notice their absence when I turn them off.  Otherwise its way to gimicky & distracting.  Movies or music.

Dolby PLIIx can be nice at low levels for the rears as long as you don't let it mess with the stereo pair, it's a matrix decoder, sort of a fancy version of the old Halfler circuit..   

Anyone with two extra speakers and some speaker wire can play around with a simple 'ambience extraction' technique by wiring up a rear pair across the positive L & R terminals of the stereo amp so just the difference signal goes to the rears, with the surrounds wired in opposite polarity.  No level control this way though so use less efficeint surrounds or point them at the back wall or ceiling.  It's cheap and easy fun even if not for critical listening.  Sort of a M/S encoder.  It can be quite enlightening to listen to the difference signal for different sources if nothing else.