home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: rec.audio
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsi!cbnewsh!ledzep
- From: ledzep@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (carl.w.muhlhausen)
- Subject: Re: CD SOund QUality
- Organization: AT&T
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:38:20 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.213820.2737@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>
- References: <1h17e4INNrkv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <24459@alice.att.com>
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <24459@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, the really irritated tonight) writes:
- >In article <1h17e4INNrkv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato) writes:
- >
- >>I say lets leave it at ONE disc format for simplicity,
- >>and work on a 32 bit 96KHz sampling system.
- >I think we could keep CD and nothing else, but given
- >the RIGHT methods, one might make either MD or DCC
- >better than CD. CD is stuck, as it stands, to PCM signals.
- >This is a fundamental idiocy. Perhaps the use for CD would
- >be to use a good perceptual compression algorithm to
- >provide 24 bit dynamic range (that's hearing-to-pain plus in
- >dynamic range) and 96kHz sampling rate, all with the same
- >bitrate of 1.4114 Mbits/second.
-
- jj,
-
- I (and I think other rec.audio crazies) would be interested in what
- audible improvements we'd get out of more dynamic range and a
- higher sampling rate. I was under the impression that 16 bits
- gives more dynamic range than we need and a higher sampling rate
- would benefit dogs and bats but few humans.
- >
- >--
- >Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
- > in the *by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is
- > defense of *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
- > liberty is no vice. *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
-
- Carl Muhlhausen "Kum wit me iff you vant to liff"
- att!taz!ledzep
-