The obvious answer to me will be multiple tracks.  Surround sound to the
extreme.  Consider 8 track digital audio at 24-bit rate.  You just might get
up into DVD storage ranges on this.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy at veldy.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason DeStefano" <destef at destef.com>
To: <tclug-list at mn-linux.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [TCLUG] HDCD?


> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> tclug-list mailing list
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>