Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: "Bill Kawalec" <billkawalec@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:22:04 -0400
wow! you sure make a lot of ASSumptions!! Fact is, MOST CDs are VERY poorly
done. That doesn't change the fact that 96Khz stereo on DVD can be FAR
superior.
Why freakin' worry about file size when you can have several hours of hi-fi
sound on a 5" disc?!?!?
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"gofab.com" <tplqqq@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eciarv01but@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:49:05 -0400, in article
<M6ednZik5-OSKXbZnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Kawalec stated:
"Hellvis" <chungismybeyotch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156289701.843432.98580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Kawalec wrote:
exactly what do you mean by "lossless" format? IMO, that can only mean
96K
stereo on DVD.
WAV and FLAC formats, to name a couple...
well, I can hear a difference between wav and DVD audio. Dunno what FLAC
is,
nor do I have any interest in it. IMO, "lossless compression" is a
marketing
term, designed to try to sell us something wholly unnecessary.
See, this guy is one of those hi fi nuts who believes that redbook CDs
fail to
capture all of the audible information and that vinyl is a superior
format.
While many early CDs sounded bad, this had nothing to do with the adequacy
of
44.1 kHz sampling to capture the audio signal properly. (I can see how
people
can argue that their are audible cues in musical signals that are above
20kHz
and that can be detected by the human ear, but nobody has ever proven such
a
claim or explained how such signals would change the presentation of the
music
if they were to be absent).
Granted, there are some issues with the CD format, but from a sound
quality
point of view they have more to do with the early learning curve of
mastering
for CDs and the limited bit depth than they do with the sampling rate. Of
course, being concerned about the low-bit dynamic resolution of a CD seems
a bit
silly when compared to vinyl and the immense noise floor of a vinyl disk.
But what are you going to do with people who think that a scratchy, noisy,
compressed, nonlinear vinyl disk, read by a inertia-limited read head that
itself exhibits substantial nonlinearities and destroys the disk a little
bit
with each play, is "better" than CD?
In any case, the discussion of lossless is relative to a particular data
set.
The point is that if you consider CD the gold standard, there are
compression
schemes that give you back every bit of information on the CD, such as MLP
and
Apple Lossless Compression, but with a smaller dataset. You can apply the
same
algorithms to 96kHz/24 bit DVD and the result is the same -- a smaller
file with
the same sound quality, no loss whatsoever of fidelity. THe tradeoff is
that
file size reduction is quite limited. There have been complex schemes
proposed
that would in theory enable the reconstruction of analog information such
as
music or images of unlimited resolution from a finite digital data set,
but have
any of these theories ever been implemented? I don't know of one.
One question -- is there a compression scheme for DSD? It seems
mathematically
possible but has it been done?
.
- References:
- Remasters in 2007
- From: D10S
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: BrianQ
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: R.A.G. Seely
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: Chimp
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: R.A.G. Seely
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: Bill Kawalec
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: Hellvis
- Re: Remasters in 2007
- From: Bill Kawalec
- Remasters in 2007
- Prev by Date: Re: What if the Beatles had to live in the real world?
- Next by Date: Re: Remasters in 2007
- Previous by thread: Re: Remasters in 2007
- Next by thread: Re: Remasters in 2007
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
