Im sure this sounds like a conspiracy theory (and perhaps a bit off topic since i havnt been following this thread)...but do we really need 24bit, 96KHz or anything close to that? Research has shown that the current 16bit 44k rate is better quality than 99% of people hearing ability anyway, why make a newer format that is 5 times as much resolution? Hasnt 48K been around for a while already? Why not use that? <conspiracy type=cynical> Here's my theory...DVD's will replace CD's for audio cd's evenetually but people wont settle for 10% of the actual DVD media used on thier $18 album. How do you make people think they are getting more for their money? You increase the format by a factor of 5 and you can fill a dvd with about 140 mins of audio (a nice compromise on their part too) rathe than needing like 9 hours of music to fill a DVD in cd format. The last thing i want to have to do is replace several hundred CD's I own with new audio format DVD's because in 10 years the 16bit 44k format probably will go the way of the 8 track. There's nothing wrong with the current CD format for general purpose albums. 24bit 96k is a waste because the original masters for most recordings is 20bit anyway--and I'll pay money to anyone (except trained audio professionals) that can reliably tell the difference. And what about copying them? What a perfect way to get some new encryption scheme out there...and also to defer copying for the simple reason that the at 4gigs per album putting them on a 50cent CD is not possible without downsampling. But a least people will feel like they are getting a better deal for their money just because they are paying for a sheer number of more bits on the disc. </conspiracy> Of course theres nothing i can do but embrace the new HDCD format...but I just like calling a spade a spade. Are ya with me on this one? Try not to flame me too hard if your not...just my personal opinion. :) Cheers!! At 10:23 AM 7/7/01 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Callum Lerwick wrote: > >> > 20-bit resolution stored in 16-bit data. But, not to worry -- if you >> > don't decode it, you still get regular "CD quality" sound. >> >> Seems like too little to late to me. DVD audio anyone? AC3 5.1 96bit >> 96khz if you want it? > >Try again. 24-bit, 96kHz. > >-- >"To misattribute a quote is unforgivable." --Anonymous > >_______________________________________________ >tclug-list mailing list >tclug-list at mn-linux.org >https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >