|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
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.
Follow Ups:
> > 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.
but it didn't happen with the DVD forum?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: