NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/audio/17430

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 2.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!otc!brendan
From: [e-mail] (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD Sound Quality
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:23:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 47

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nicholas E. Damato) says:
> I say lets leave it at ONE disc format for simplicity, and work on a 32 bit
> 96 kHz sampling system.

This sort of thing pops up regularly here, and I have to ask, on what *basis*
have you made the assertion that 96 kHz sampling with 32 bit resolution is
required for audio reproduction?  Are these numbers you've just picked out of
the air (as many others seem to have previously)?

All I see from people who promote this sort of thing is nothing more than a
simplistic "more is better" approach.  I'm afraid science and technology is
rarely advanced by speculative guesswork.

So, if you have no basis for deciding on the parameters you've chosen, what
happens if you spend $100k developing a system to record and playback audio
signals to these parameters, and the result is not what you expected?  (eg
it doesn't sound any better than the current CD format).  Do you go back
and up things to 48 bits and 192 kHz sampling?  Do you randomly tweak?  Do
you give up?

Things don't work that way - not if you want your development to be cost
effective.  You have to have a pretty solid rationale for developing a new
product, plently of scientific, psychoacoustic and theoretical substantiation
for the design path chosen.

If you don't, you waste many thousands of dollars, because you won't get it
right the first time.  You need to be sure you *are* going to make it right
the first time before you actually do *make* it.

You can't guess, or pluck "96 kHz" out of the air because it sounds like it
might be enough.  How do you *know* whether it is or isn't?  If 44.1 kHz
*isn't* enough, how much higher do you *need* to go??

Now, none of this is meant to imply that the current CD format is perfect.
It may be sufficient to many ears, it may not be to some.  However, there is
a *lot* of theoretical foundation for the CD parameters chosen, and I think
the onus is on you to *prove* they are inadequate.

Dissatisfaction with the sound of CDs is not sufficient proof, either.  It's
an opinion.

BJ (who's sick of psuedo-science)
--
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  [e-mail]               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  [phone]    Fax:  [phone]   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig