In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
[big snip]


I read through your post carefully, Jim, looking for the bit where you
explained *why* a domestic listener might need an S/N ratio greater than
90dB, but failed to find it. Instead I read a load of stuff about people
taking care, and the possibility of the *label* "24-bit" being used to
imply an "audiophile" quality recording. Oh, and there was also some
stuff about the possible advantages of 96k vs 44.1k, but neither the
original article, nor my comment, addressed *that* issue.

You may need to get out more, David. Take a walk in the garden and clear
your head. :-) To simplify in the hope of making what I already said
clearer to you:

A) 96k/24 may bring the advantage in practice that the producers don't foul
up what they flog on that basis as much as they often do when they flog the
same content in other formats. Instead of "louder is better" etc, they may
provide versions on the basis that the customer does want good quality.
Nothing to do with the technology of CDDA. Everything to do with the
attitudes of the sellers re the customers.

B) We can only buy (or refuse to buy) what someone puts on sale.

C) Only time will tell *if* we are given the chance.

I don't dispute that, under ideal circumstances, some listeners (those
with younger ears than mine) might detect a marginal improvement in
going from 44.1k to 96k. But as to 24-bit? nah!

Again to clarify. My comments had little or nothing to do with what CDDA
and 96k/24 are technically capable of. They were really about having the
companies realise they have potential customers who will pay (more) for
decent audio quality. My guess is that those who have little interest in
audio quality probably *won't* pay them. They will switch to bootleg
download mp3s.

I don't know what will happen. I expect the big music companies to fold
because most people really don't care about them or audio quality.
Personally I won't miss them *provided* their back catalogue isn't lost to
us all. But (A) might give an income from the back catalogue if handled
well. Thus help the content to remain available.

I suspect the survivors will be small specialist labels who find they can
sell high quality recordings to a small number of enthusiasts. At the
moment they seem to do this by making decent CDs, perhaps as CD/SACD
hybrids. They are also selling 'high rez' downloads as well. Time will
tell.

Put it this way: Just as the webpage Arny pointed to showed some will just
use 96k/24 as a 'flag' under which to see the same old crap. Others could
use it to 'flag' a serious interest in quality. However I suspect the mass
market will have no real interest in the former when they feel that what
they get sounds just like a bootleg download mp3. Whereas the latter may
attract paying customers as a niche market *if and when* it really does
sound good. Maybe CDDA would sound as good. But who would care if they can
get the 96k/24 for much the same price as CDDA becomes a low-volume item?

As I kept pointing out, I am happy enough with *well done* CDDA, and I have
no crystal ball. But the market dynamics may lead us to the division
between cheap/free mp3 and specialist 'high rez'. GIven that choice, the
one remaining factor to the advantage of CDDA is the physical disc in a box
with printed notes.

In fact you can argue that something like 96k/24 or 192k/24 on a DVD in a
box with notes is just as cheap and easy to make as CDDA. So why not, if
this is what the division in the market points towards? :-)

Hope you now follow that. If not, I'll give up. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html