Space Ritual + DVD

[Carl Edlund Anderson]

On 20/05/2007 17:14, Paul Mather wrote:
> On 20 May 2007, at 4:37 PM, Stephen Swann wrote:
>> Only an uncompressed digital solution, with error correction
>> as part of the storage format will make me happy.
> 
> I think I missed the start of this thread, but aren't you describing 
> good ol' pre-existing CD audio discs here?  Or are you saying you want 
> MORE error correction?

Isn't the best "error correction" having a backup that can seemlessly 
replace lost data?

 > (And yes,
 > I know that analog->digital is a kind of lossy compression
 > in itself.)  ;-)

On the other hand, some kind of "loss" in digital has to be inevitable 
since our ears are "analog" :)  I guess it remains just a matter of 
making the bit depth and sample rates high enough that the amount of 
data exceeds human capacity to perceive it.

I suppose in the glorious (?) cyberfuture when we all have bionic 
hearing, everything will need to be remastered _again_ .... ;)

Until then, I think 24-bit, 96 Khz audio ought to be "good enough" (and 
at least better than current CD audio).

(Though there are other issues here -- recording something at 24-bit, 96 
Khz and then downsampling to 16-bit 44.1 Khz can possibly introduce more 
distortion through the resampling process than simply having recorded 
16-bit 44.1 Khz input for 16-bit 44.1 Khz output!)

 > Has anybody actually listened to any high-def CDs vs their
 > "standard" counterpart?  Is the difference discernable to
 > human beings, or do you need high precision equipment to
 > detect it?

I haven't got audiophile-quality kit, but I strongly suspect good kit 
does indeed make a big difference -- albeit probably an increasingly 
slight difference as we head towards the top of the range.  For 
instance, I'm sure most of us can hear a big difference between 
listening to the same CD on a cheap "dorm room" style boombox and a 
decent quality home hi-fi system.  I haven't tried myself, but I suspect 
better speakers, a dedicated DAC, all that kind of thing would have at 
least some noticeable impact.

On the other hand, I mostly tend to have music on while moving around 
the house, working at a desk or reading in a chair -- or on the move 
through the iPod.  I'm probably not listening closely enough, 99% of the 
time, to notice many of the benefits higher-end equipment would bring. 
I can certainly hear the limitations of lower bit-rate MP3s or my iPod's 
headphones, but in the latter case -- well, portable headphones in my 
hands lead dangerous lives :) and it's not economically viable for me to 
invest in snazzy headphones to carry around ;)

Cheers,
Carl

-- 
Carl Edlund Anderson
mailto:cea at carlaz.com
http://www.carlaz.com/