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
>