17 db peak? Ouch.
17 db peak? Ouch.
|17 db peak? Ouch.|
|Originally posted by Bigus
A mix of topics flying around in this thread. A few random comments thrown in by myself...
lol, John Ashman is well known in the "industry?" :D No offense John... but that one put a smile on my face, as I'm sure it did yours. :)
Though, I do have an idea for a rather unique and potentially revolutionary use for the extra bandwith that doesn't involve more spatial channels or a higher resolution of any one channel.
Agreed! I also seem to recall that Nousaine felt as though well recorded redbook CD was indistinguishable from 20/48-96.
|I believe the Meridian tests showed there were no audible differences above around 20-bit, 58Khz. Some recordings are up to 24/192 and still climbing. More and more marketing bits and cycles being added everyday.|
|You may be right Tom, however, I'd MUCH rather see that bandwidth put to use as 10.2 20-bit 48kHz channels. How cool would it be to be able to raise or lower a specific instrument at will and have it come from just one specific speaker. After hearing DTS, I'm convinced that more speakers will improve sound FAR more than more bandwidth. We have a channel bottleneck, not a bandwidth bottleneck. And I think I'd rather have 10 mini-monitors and dual subs for around $2K that some ultra-high-end 5.1 system.|
|Supposedly, DVD-A can do up to 8 16/48 channels. We won't see it, but that's supposedly what it can do. I don't know if that's before or after MLP.|
|Originally posted by Steve_D
but I get to control the music, the volume, and the set-up of everything except the tested piece.
|People that listen to 2 channel music through artificial processing modes, ummm..no comment! This is what i'm up against lol|
|Originally posted by theranman
I was at a PSACS(Prairie State Audio Construction Society) meeting about a year and a half ago at Tom Nousaine and his friend Tom Perazella attended. When asked about SACD and DVD-A, they kinda snickered, then Tom Perazella described how they measured a SACD against an original of the same recording and noticed a nice bump up in the bass. Then he said with dripping sarcasm; "Hey now, THAT ain't supposed to happen now, is it?!"
Yep, these guys are skeptics, but then again, they've got the technical backgrounds and knowledge to back up their opinions...
ps-end of sarcasm and rant for today.
Help! Velodyne CHT-15 -107.3 dB/ 25hz~92dB__32hz~108.4dB (105.1dB)
What do these numbers mean? Are they anechoic? How far away was the mic?, etc. Sorry for the dumb question, I just don't know how to decipher the info.
|Originally posted by John Ashman
While I think there is a difference between 24/96 and 16/44, there are three main problems. One, the differences are not nearly as much as one would like to hope. Two, most recordings can't even live up to the quality of 16/44, let alone higher rates.
|Originally posted by Alimental
That's some interesting stuff, though it's unfortunate that it doesn't talk about actual sonic performance, just raw volume. And I can't believe he measure subwoofers by jamming them into the corners. If that were the standard for audio performance, we'd all just jam Klipsch Horns into our corners and be done with it. I'd rather know what subs have a flat response and what they can do at 1% distortion rather than 10%.