Re: [microsound] High sampling rates/Bit depths

[John Nowak <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 17, 2004, at 4:48 PM, ian stewart wrote:

> > If you know anywhere I could read about such loveliness, I'd 
> > appreciate it.
>
> As one of many examples: 
> www.engineering.vcu.edu/fac/Lenhardt/lenultra.html

Thanks. In all fairness though, this refers entirely to ultrasound 
transmitted underwater. In fact, it speaks of the failure of airborne 
ultrasound to sufficient stimulate the inner ear.

> > I'd suspect the number of tracks you'd want to have a range greater 
> > than 96dB are incredibly limited. Very rarely would you want to go 
> > from a whisper to pain-inducing... For playback, 24-bit audio is not 
> > going to give any benefit over a properly dithered 16-bit recording
>
> Listen closely to the noise, distortion, and sound dropoff in fadeout 
> tails in 16-bit at high volume (as you might have in a concert 
> situation).  I've seen some pieces that are almost entirely below -48 
> dB, which is 8-bit audio!

But is this not a case of poor production?
Hm... perhaps I listen to too much noise music. 0dB dynamic range! ;-)

Perhaps I should've specified "commercial music", where the average 
recording is compressed all to hell anyway. You're right in saying that 
some recordings which make use of extreme dynamics could benefit. 
However, even in such a case I still think the benefit is minimal 
especially given the equipment that most music is reproduced with, but 
we're getting subjective here. I certainly do not plan on repurchasing 
*anything* I currently own on CD should it be rereleased on a 
higher-res format.

> > 99% of people are happy with properly encoded AAC/MP3 files, so I 
> > really don't think the DVD-audio thing will ever catch on. I suppose 
> > I should never underestimate capitalism's ability to make people want 
> > what they don't need though...
>
> People still go to the cinema, even though they're happy with their 
> telly, if the analogy makes any sense. Or maybe they watch CNN on the 
> old Hitachi, but watch Apocalypse Now on the home theater. MP3 may 
> work fine in a lot of situations, but I think many listeners know 
> there's a difference.

Right, there certainly is a difference between the quality of mp3s and 
CDs. What I was stating though is that most people, probably around 
99%, really do not care even if they do notice. For example, its 
perfectly possible to stick a ton of AIFF files ripped directly from a 
CD on an iPod, but no one actually does it. They value the quicker 
transfer times and saving of HD space more than sound quality. I was 
speaking more to the fact that I am unsure of the  commercial viability 
of DVD-audio since most people are happy with the inferior quality of 
mp3s already.

- John Nowak


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org