Re: For the believers and SoundBlaster haters

"Randy Yates" <yates@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m3tzkyom0k.fsf@xxxxxxxx
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

"Audio Smith" <audiosmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AvHmj.9$jw7.5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Randy Yates" <yates@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:m3k5lxle1v.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Audio Smith" <audiosmith@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Perhaps now is a good time to ask why we need a new
medium? E.g., one with 24 bits and 96 kHz sampling or
somesuch? (For distribution - recording is another
matter). --
Perhaps now is a good time to ask why we need a new
medium? E.g., one with 24 bits and 96 kHz sampling or


somesuch? (For distribution - recording is another
matter).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Also,
perhaps you didn't read my entire post. I was
addressing
the medium used for distribution, NOT for recording.

Fully implemented Blu-ray audio is 24/96.

Not really. 24/96 is the highest audio channel data rate
that is supported. The lower data rates are just as
fully implemented.

The good news is that no space will be wasted by any of
the even more ludicrous formats, such as 24/192.

How can this be Arny?

It's not implemented.

If it can't be used, it can't waste space.



.

Relevant Pages