DVD-Audiobahn

• Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) - Michi 01:07:00 04/09/03 (10)
  In Reply to: DVD-A is DEAD!!!! (I am filling in for Rich, who is away). posted by Duilawyer on April 08, 2003 at 21:48:52:

  I just wish that there had been a 384/24 spec. heh.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) - Martin 04:48:56 04/09/03 (9)
    In Reply to: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) posted by michi on April 09, 2003 at 01:07:00:

    > > I just wish that there had been a 384/24 spec. heh. < <

    Did you mean 384kHz/32bit? That sort of spec is mainly of real benefit only within the recording chain itself (i.e. during mixing & DSP processing) to minimise any mathematical errors so there is insignificant signal degradation to the final 24bit output which the consumer hears.
    
    

    ---

    • I thought Samsung offered that up as a spec originally... - Michi 12:25:50 04/09/03 (1)
      In Reply to: Re: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) posted by Martin on April 09, 2003 at 04:48:56:

      but it didn't happen with the DVD forum?
      
      

      ---

      • yes - Joe Murphy Jr 17:52:08 04/09/03 (0)
        In Reply to: I thought Samsung offered that up as a spec originally... posted by michi on April 09, 2003 at 12:25:50:

        Samsung suggested 24/384 instead of 24/192. I wish the DVD forum would have took them up on this. I also wish they would have adopted "no watermarks" as well. Oh the mistakes they have made. Would have, could have, should have...
        
        

        ---
    • Resolution - RdH 10:29:59 04/09/03 (4)
      In Reply to: Re: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) posted by Martin on April 09, 2003 at 04:48:56:

      There are some who believe that 58kHz/20-bit is enough to attain audible transparency. I'll let one of them explain:

      http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

      There is some justification for 96kHz but beyond is more likely marketing then need.
      
      

      ---

      • Re: Resolution - John Kotches 05:32:27 04/13/03 (2)
        In Reply to: Resolution posted by rdh on April 09, 2003 at 10:29:59:

        Rdh,

        Sort of.

        The paper defines the MINIMUM requirements for delivery of high quality audio to the end user.

        Utilization of higher sampling depths and rates is encouraged to allow for any and all required processing without compromising the quality of the delivered channel to the end user.

        
        
        Regards,
        John Kotches
        
        

        ---

        • Re: Resolution - RdH 12:59:12 04/13/03 (1)
          In Reply to: Re: Resolution posted by John Kotches on April 13, 2003 at 05:32:27:

          The point to be made is that increasing the sample rate beyond 96kHz (to answer the threads question of a 384kHz standard) seems to be more of a marketing feature then a requirement of the delivery mechanism for the consumer.

          From the same paper we have the quote:
          "Although there is a small lobby that suggests even higher sample rates should be used – like 192kHz– the author disputes this; preferring to point out that when 96kHz channels have been correctly designed in terms of transmission, filtering, etc, that higher rates simply will not offer any benefit."

          (So maybe Robert Stuart doesn't know what he is talking about but both you & I seem to enjoy some of the products he has a hand in.)

          I would rather see the existing standard be used to create recordings for me to use. As the standard does allow for 192kHz we appear to have enough headroom already.

          Working with higher resolutions while in the process of creating the consumer product does make sense.

          Rod.
          
          
          

          ---

          • Re: Resolution - John Kotches 16:08:29 04/13/03 (0)
            In Reply to: Re: Resolution posted by rdh on April 13, 2003 at 12:59:12:

            You reach a point where the diminishing returns become essentially nil, and IMO, it's somewhere between 96 and 192K.

            Then again, Meridian puts their money where their mouth is, since they are 24/96K enabled across their entire product line, nothing higher for the present.

            
            Regards,
            John Kotches
            
            

            ---
      • Re: Resolution - Frank 10:46:15 04/09/03 (0)
        In Reply to: Resolution posted by rdh on April 09, 2003 at 10:29:59:

        There is also a practical issue that 96ks is exactly twice the sample rate of 48kHz which is used in many DVD Video and many recording studio's.

        Frank
        
        

        ---
    • I too, had thought above 192 there was no audible difference.? nt - Duilawyer 07:07:39 04/09/03 (1)
      In Reply to: Re: Just for the record, I'd like to second that. (Not the 'dead' part, though.) posted by Martin on April 09, 2003 at 04:48:56:

      .
      
      

      ---

      • Yep. . . . And some 'golden ears' would also apply that to anything above 96kHz . {n.t.} - Martin 09:16:14 04/09/03 (0)
        In Reply to: I too, had thought above 192 there was no audible difference.? nt posted by Duilawyer on April 09, 2003 at 07:07:39:

        .
        
        

        ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---