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 >