While I don't claim experience doing this, I just tried the workflow and looks good so far.
From Premiere, File > Export > Media to get into AME
In AME, choose Windows Waveform. The default preset is 48k. Go down to audio settings and there are a BUNCH of other options. Select 96k and export your 96k wav file.
Export to "MPEG-2 for DVD" as you normally would. Yes, this produces 48k audio. We don't care.
Open Encore and "Import as Asset" and select the .m2v video clip, and your 96k .wav (forget about the 48k file, not using it).
In Encore, the .m2v will say "Don't Transcode", while the audio will say "Untranscoded". This is because Dolby Digital is the DEFAULT for audio.
Go to File > Project Settings > Default Trancode Settings. Change AUDIO to PCM. Now your audio asset will say "Don't Transcode".
Have not tried burning/playing a DVD with 96k, but this ought to do it
Safe Harbor Computers
PS - I did a BUILD as FOLDER, then Imported resulting .vob into Premiere CS6 and checked Properties and audio shows as 96k. I think we have a solid solution.
PSS - realized you wanted 24-bit. Exported 96k, 24-bit wav from AME and imported to Encore. Wants to transcode to 96k 16-bit, can't find any 24-bit audio support in Encore, sorry.
Hi Jeff, thanks! That seems like it would work but I'm getting an immediate compiling error; unknown cause even after restarting premiere. Windows management console indicates nothing at all re any hardware or software errors, etc. VBut then again Adobe says "unkown reason" so I guess it wouldn't show anything in the console.
But if I keep it at 24bit and lower sampling rate to 48kHz, it's fine.
Any ideas on that?
Note I'm on CS6. Did some research and found postings about Encore and 96k 24bit and here is the answer: from AME, encode the audio in the AIFF format. Just tried it. Imported into Encore, burned to folder, imported .vob into Premiere and Properties say the audio is indeed 96K 24 bit stereo! So 24 bit PCM (wav) gets Transcoded in Encore, but an AIFF file does not!
Can't help with compiling errors. Oh, make sure the wav files are smaller than 2GB.
Safe Harbor Computers
By the way, Jeff, I use a free little media file analysis tool called "Mediainfo" which is an easy way to examine media properties as deeply as one can (I believe). In Windows, it is a right mouse click if you have a media file selected. You may find that easier than importing into Premiere and especially so since you cannot import all media files into Premiere to examine properties.
I just put some clips on the timeline totalling 2.5 hours and tried to export the 96k 24-bit .aiff file and got an ERROR. Shortened it up to just over an hour and the export worked, but resulted in a file size of over 2GB! So you are looking at about 4GB just for audio on your project. This would require a Dual-Layer disc.
I've not had problems re 2GB or 4GB file size limits in a long time (I'm on 64bit of course). Doesn't present a problem when exporting to other formats when resulting size is larger than 4GB. In fact I exported a file for a BDR test burn with a resulting 20-some-odd GB size and no problem. I believe all that dissapeared with XP (NT before that?; bit I wasn't in video biz back then).
I do know that there is indeed a 4G limit under FAT32. MY 788T is a FAT32 device. It splits the files according to 4GB chunks but when laid into timeline the transitions to the next file is seamless.
Anyway, this limitation on not being to "just do it" seems eggregiously lame. DVD has always supported 24bit/96kHz and even at uncompressed if desired. I near the point of disgust with my Matrox MXO2 mini and e-baying that sucker in favor of a MOTO box that does support 24/96 and has the Premiere plugin architecture. The only thing it currently lacks is the Max encoding option. But I spoke to MOTU yesterday and suggested they implement it and the person I spoke to was warm to the concept. For $800-$850, you can get the MOTO model with SDI in. and the SDI converts to a RGB signal via the HDMI/component out (required for a HP Dreamcolor monitor I'd like to get). The SDI is apparently needed for full support of Graphics-for-Video output (solves latency issues) using the new Mercury Transmit feature. (Need an NVidia card with Cuda and SDI output)
I try to avoid the bleeding edge in my projects but I really do insist that wanting 96kHz on a DVD is not a bloody edge. So, OK, Matrox is lame and doesn't support it; Adobe should have been supporting it a long time ago for DVD output. Audio cards and onboard integrated MOBO audio chips have supported it for a long time.
I'm not an audio engineer but according to Nyquist's Theorem, 48kHz audio can only really be heard as approx half that rate. I've had some veteran audiophiles listening to my audio played directly from my 788T to a pair of Genelc reference speakers and also to those speakers from my PC audio card. I'm getting high praise for the fidelity and transparency. I used to work for a classical label in sales and I hear very high quality and transapent sound.
I'm highly dissapointed in Adobe and Matrox. Blackmagic is also lame on this count. I hope MOTU adds a realime encoding option ala Matrox max and eats all their lunch.
Thanks for all of your help.
I just did a Google search and it appears that regardless of operating system or anything else, the .wav file format is limited to 4GB in size, though a lot of software programs cut it off at 2GB (2GB was the limit with older operating systems).
As for the 96k audio support, I can understand your frustration as an audiophile, but if you can step back and look at this from the view of the AVERAGE video producer, you are in a small minority. Video cameras record audio at a max of 48k, so why would a video capture card support anything higher? Only MOTU does, and that is because they are first and foremost an AUDIO device company. That is their strength and focus.
As we have discovered, the 96k 24-bit wav audio file is HUGE, therefore not practical for most DVD applications as it takes up all the space on the disc, leaving little room for quality video. You are in a niche, producing DVDs for audiophiles. I also read that even though 96k audio is an option for DVD, all players are NOT required to support it. Many will claim to but in fact truncate the audio back down to 16 bit for playback.
Please note that with CS6, Adobe now uses Mercury Transmit to interface with third-party cards, so MXO2 can now use ANY of the Adobe-native Sequence presets, so you ought to be able to specify 96k audio in the timeline, though Matrox is not set up to play at that rate.
As for MAX encoding of H.264 files, a new Core i7 PC with Nvidia GPU acceleration will do it faster natively, so that technology is becoming obsolete, unless you have an older computer or laptop that can really benefit from the acceleration.
I certainly appreciate that you are producing fantastic audio and hope you are able to realize your goal of putting the high fidelity out on DVD.
Thanks for your valuable insight on all of this and your testing. I get your point re me being in the minority. However I still doubt this a case of being on the bleeding edge of technology and notwithstanding that the files are huge, it has been part of the spec. If Adobe allows 24/96 in various other encoding output options then I feel it should for DVD, and certainly should for BDR. I suspect all BDR players support it.
For the 15 years I've been in this biz, my work has been coprporate - as is the fundraising video I produced for the symphony. Since one rarely (if ever) gets a chance to record symphony orchestras and my 788T allowed it, I logically chose 24/96. I guess I need to research the optional Dolby Digital or MPEG encoding of audio for this kind of programming (never used or needed it since no corporate accounts ever complained about the stereo PCM audio.)
Very interesting re i7+GPU acceleration being faster than Max encoding. Please tell me where you got that info. I assume there's been reliable testing. I know one thing: Max doesn't heat up my CPU and GPU. I currently have an i7 980 hex core with a GTX470. (as I understand it, GTX is fine for Premiere editing; Quadro isn't really needed unless doing heavy graphics in After Effects).
Here's one for you that you may not already know: according to Adobe's own site, you need an approved GPU card with SDI out in order to take full advantage of what it calls "Graphics for Video" output (I think it's supposed to reduce latency issues with output to an external monitor.
Nvidia now has a special plugin to properly allow Mercury Transport passthru. BMD, for example, is now claiming that their devices allow Mercury Transmit passthru but says nothing re needing an approved card with SDI out and the special plugin to make it work. I understand that even without SDI out, one does get external monitoring without using a Matrox or other third-party i/o box. When I call Matrox or BMD they know nothing. Ditto for the NVidia guy I spoke to.
I've been planning my new budget to include an HP Dreamcolor monitor but that doesn't have SDI in. MOTU said that their device with SDI-in does output RGB via its HDMI or component out. (Dreamcolor requires RGB signal).
I've always used Canopus, Matrox or BMD but now I'd like to get away away from these third-party i/o solutions due to being troublesome with buggy drivers just adding more complexity and complications than they're worth. If Nvidia offers SDI out and, by nature, the output is RGB, and I find a monitor that has SDI but doesn't cost a fortune. (currently using a Sony LMD2030W production monitor), why do I need a third-party i/o solution? (other than if I want 96kHz).
I welcome any further insights you have these third-pary devices becoming obsolete re your comment above re Max encoding not being as fast i7-GPU acceleration. As well as anything I'm positing.
Thanks again, Jeff!
I see you are using CS5.5, so keep in mind that if you upgrade to CS6 at some point, the MXO2 will become more transparent using the Mercury Transmit - you no longer need a Matrox Sequence Preset, just edit in any Adobe sequence and it always monitors out of MXO2!
Regarding MAX encoding, Matrox says "Up to 5x Faster", but that of course is on an older machine. The gap between MAX and native encode speeds has been steadily decreasing the last couple of years as computers got faster. I did the benchmarks myself, and have been doing them the past few years on diffferent machines and watching the export times get closer to one another as machines got faster.
The test is simple - Export a sample timeline to the native "H.264 for Blu-ray" format and time it out, then export the same timeline using a Matrox H.264 preset, matching the encode parameters to make it even. On my 2011-vintage Core i7-2600 machine, YouTube HD exports are roughly realtime, while 1080i Blu-ray might take 1.5x realtime. On a new Core-i7 3930k (6-core) machine with Quadro 4000 GPU, Blu-ray export is now a little faster than realtime natively! Your processor is first-gen, so MAX performance will help you out for sure.
MAX is still very beneficial to anyone using Mac, older PC workstations, or laptops. Also, MAX allows CAPTURE direct to H.264, which may be useful to some people, for instance capturing an HDV tape as H.264 for Blu-ray, ready to drop into Encore to burn. No transcode needed!
Back to the 96k/24 bit thing, I think it would be fair to say that maybe only 1 in 5000 Encore users would ever be interested in doing what you are doing. Seriously. I've been authoring DVDs almost since they came out, and have never had a need or interest in going beyond the default 48k settings, nor has anyone I know or any customers I help. You'd have to have the 96k source files to start with, meaning a separate recording altogether. While it is not a direct option when exporting to DVD, I've demonstrated that it can be done very quickly and easily by just exporting a separate audio clip. Unless someone has a very nice audio setup on their home theater, and has a trained ear, I'd guess that most people would never know the difference between very good 48k audio and 96k audio. I just shot a dance recital and the audio engineer gave me a .wav file of the final mix and I was blown away! It sounded far superior to any live audio recording I have ever captured on my own.
Regarding Nvidia SDI output, a Quadro 4000 SDI card is $4700, plus monitors are very expensive, so you just might want to reconsider Matrox and a calibrated HDMI display.
Thanks again, Jeff, for your insights.
I certainly agree with you completely re "most people" being fine with 48kHz. But when you are talking about recording a symphony orchestra and listening on audiophile gear, things are indeed different when it comes to reproduced fidelity.
I recorded with the 788t which has fabulously quiet preamps and superb AD converters. Connected to 3, 1500 dollar Earthworks omnis, I am definitely starting with files the quality of which are rarely ever heard outside of a concert hall during live performance.
So I guess I'm just not like the other people (probably not even close to 1-in-5 million people ever get the chance to record a symphony orchestra...) And, I also understand the basic implications of Nyquist's Theorem. 96kHz recording gets you approximately 44kHz quality. 48kHz gets you approximately 22kHz quality. Make no mistake about it, when listening to a symphonic recording on superb listening gear, there is a difference.
I've got some kind of bug going on that prevents me from doing the steps you tested sucessfully to do it with 24/96 which I'll have to overcome.
I suspect that MOTU sees the market for what they're doing re supporting 24/96 audio, i.e.developing a video i/o device with Premiere and FCP plugin architecture as they have.
My monitor is a Sony pro production rec 709 monitor so I'm good on that count.
Unless I get into heavy After Effects work I assume I probably don't need SDI out on a Quadro card.