Jason DeStefano wrote: > > 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? More dynamic range. (Movies in particular tend to make more use of this. Ever notice how DVD's on a computer tend to sound quieter than most other audio sources? The average volume is kept down to allow more room for loud obnoxious dramatic orchestral hits during action scenes. ;) More headroom to perform audio processing without loosing perceptible aliasing artifacts. And if you've got this kind of quality in the studio, why not pass it on to the consumer? Data storage is cheap these days. > <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. But they *are* getting more for their money. Its for the most part beyond the limits of human perception, but its there. ;) > 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. http://www.cdrecordingsoftware.com/mimd442.html http://www.terratec.net/products/ewx2496/ewx2496_overview.htm http://aes.harmony-central.com/109AES/Content/Fostex/PR/D2424.html http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/apr00/articles/rmeadi96.htm http://www.TASCAM.com/ProductsTemplate.cfm?Category=DAT&ProductName=DA-45HR Mmmm... expensive hardware... > 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. Well you said yourself, 44.1khz 16bit is "Good Enough". And its been pretty well proven already that encryption of media formats is fundamentally flawed. And 4gigs will be childs play within 5 years. > Are ya with me on this one? Try not to flame me too > hard if your not...just my personal opinion. :) Personally, I'd rather see more bandwidth put into increasing framerate, but thats just me. 24/30fps film/video is only just 'Good Enough' to trick the human eye into seeing motion. There's far more room for improvement. Ever notice how eerily smooth a 3D game looks running on a monitor doing 82hz-100hz, assuming the game is that fast? ;) Ever play a video in xanim with it set to play at monitor refresh? Ever rendered a 60fps animation in a 3D program? Douglas Trumbull considered using 60fps film for the 'VR' parts of the movie 'Brainstorm', to give it that 'more real' quality. But dropped it considering there was no way they'd get theaters to upgrade. ;P One of these days I want to get a slow-motion camera to play with. Muhaha...