Brian,
I'm certainly no expert when it comes to audio. I am somewhat an expert on
video
compression however audio recording and playback is a whole different animal.
I understand
compression rates and algorithms and understand sampling techniques in theory
but the
overall sound concept and what can be heard especially in played back
recordings is for the
most part just to subjective for me to really know where the truth begins and
the hype
ends. But this engineer explained to me the limits of analog recording
capabilities. They
do exceed current CD quality of 16 bit 44kz. However analog can not capture
all of the
sound that is captured with 24/96 digital. So with that said it is still
theoretical
whether the average consumer will ever be able to tell the difference. Because
digital in
and of itself has a very high signal to noise ratio it is for the most part
clearer than
most consumer based analog playback products. By capturing even more sound
than the best
analog systems have ever captured and being able to play it back at the 24/96
rate, it does
in theory offer a promise of recording that is closer to live performance than
anything we
have yet experienced. Whether we have all of the other components necessary to
create and
take advantage of this is a big question, and it is likely that most consumers
will not be
able to tell the difference. However I think the recording industry should
move forward
into this new standard.
Back in 1980 I became a very early advocate of the new CD digital standard.
Most of the
recording industry back then thought it too was a fad and that the average
consumer would
never through out their collections of LP's along with their turntables and
embrace this new
standard. They thought it was just a toy of the nerdy audiophile. Back then I
was working
for a small software company in Northern California that had contracts to build
front end
tools for some of the very first compact disk recorders. I was a software
quality control
expert (i.e. I tested the product by punching in numbers on a machine .. some
expert!) . At
the time Phillips owned most of the patents and Sony shared in some of the
specifications
for writing to the CD. Knowing that the CD was equivalent to over 600 mb of
data back then
was mind boggling. The average 5.25 floppy back then held just over 100kb. No
one back
then ever in their wildest dreams thought a compact disk recorder would be part
of a desktop
micro computer. These machines were so specialized and expensive that none of
the US
recording companies would invest in them. At the time Phillips could only sell
the machines
in Europe and Sony sold them in Japan. Even during the early 1980's no US
recording company
had local access to compact disk recording labs. Basically the RIAA thought it
was not a
good investment. When the RIAA realized that they could not only sell these
CDs but sell
them at 3 times the profit of an LP, they jumped in like pigs at a feeding
frenzy. It was
not until then did the overall industry get behind the CD. I believe it will
be the same
way with DVD audio. To paraphrase the RIAA ...'It's no good technically until
we can come
up with a way to make more & more money'. Unfortunately that motto is still
the gospel of
the industry.
I agree we're getting a little off topic. So some obligatory OM content ...
but back in
1980 I had an OM1 with a 50mm/1.8, a 75-150 Zoom, and a Vivitar 2x, a Vivitar
tripod, a
Vivitar electronic flash, and an obsession for Kodachrome 64. And I took some
of my best
out door scenics and portraits. Maybe listening to too many CDs has killed my
outdoor
creativity?
Phillip Franklin
"Windrim, Brian" wrote:
> Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if you substitute 16 for 24,
> 44.1 for 96 and
> CD for DVD, you could have been having this conversation back in 1984 :-)
>
> That said, 24/96 is the best consumer digital audio format we can hope for,
> because
> it's equal to to better than what most recordings are being made at.
> Unfortunately,
> the prevaling forces in the industry, e.g.
>
> - DVD audio format wars (DAD vs. DVD vs. SACD)
> - Lossy compression (MP3, AC3)
> - Massive investment in, and public acceptance of, Compact Disc
> - A shrinking market for high-quality music
>
> mean that anything "better than CD" (an oxymoron in the minds of 990f the
> population)
> is unlikely to gain more than a toehold in the mass-market.
>
> It's also worth noting that Sony's new SACD format is bitstream based, as
> opposed
> to PCM, and so need to be converted from/to linear PCM for recording and
> playback
> in many cases. How this is supposed to be better than just copying the 24/96
> PCM
> datastream from the sound engineer's desk is unclear.
>
> Sorry to go off-topic, I'll try to make this my last posting on the subject.
>
> -Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|