Vote

What about MPEG2????

Do we really need a new audio medium? It appears that we are not fully utilizing the current CD technology. Simply adding a new medium that maintains the same lack of full utilization of the material seems to be more marketing based than need based.

I am c2F44k. How about 14bit/96k with loss less compression algorithm.

For theatre, 5 discrete channels (2 front, two rear, and subwoofer). Careful recording can make a great front soundstage without the troublesome use of a center channel. Entirely impractical though I suppose.

Your NEW page looks just fine, thank you. Gene Puerling The Hi-Lo's The Singers Unlimited

It's got to be "horses for courses".Most equipment can barely be called stereo,let alone multi channel.Do'nt forget that this is a WORLD standard!

Here's a thought: Take a 5.1 channel 24bit/96kHz signal, and *compress* it to a lower bit rate that would come off the transport at say, 16bit/44kHz. A high-quality compression algorythm such as DTS should be used for the compression. This would: A) Sound *WAY* better than anything out there now, B) be able to use standard CD transports, and C) Use inexpensive, software-based decoder technology. Summary: To hell with DVD, its just another finger in our wallets. We still have lots of ways to dramatically improve our existing technology!

192,000 and up 223,000 sampling for a perfect sinus wave

If current DVD cannot store 5.1 channels of information at 24bits/96kHz then I wouldn't mind if it is just 2 channels in 24bits/96kHz. Bottom line is to get true high fidelity and say NO to compression.

Preferably 24bit/96k for 2 channel audio. For 5.1 channel at least 16bit/44k. How about 14bit/96k with loss less compression algorithm.

Music is an essential part of human existence. Video is just fun. I forget where I read this but truer words were never spoken.

Audio CD compatibility and a choice of mixes are the highest on my list. For example: provide a 2-channel CD mix, a 2-channel high resolution mix, and a 5.1 channel mix on the same piece of media. Lossless compression (where possible) and hgh data rates are also extremely important to me.

I chose the open standards box hopeing for the best really. Having at least CD standard would be good (comptiable players and all that. I'm not so sure about 5.1 channels outside of the dolby/type field. I have had a personal interst in this area for a few years and have conducted a little research as part of my degree and I have to come down to the truth that this type of encoding for "as if you where there" applications is destined to failure. IMO only one system exists to create full perception of being there that is the ambisonics system pioneered by the late Michael Gerzon. A little bit of searching from Lycos will bring tons of information if you haven't already got loads. Daniel Sepke lpadsepk@lipa.ac.uk

Quality over quantity. A format with multiple 16/44 channels doesn't really seem like much of a step forward.

quality, not quantity

What about Sony DSD ?

quality comes first

Sony has just introduced dual layer CD's - One, for standard resolution, the other for higher resolution with multi channel. Street date for 1999.

Being that I listen to mostly choral or orchestral music, I tend to find surround recordings annoying. I want to imagine I'm sitting IN A SEAT at orchestra hall--not in the pit. Regards and kudos on your fine new site! Christopher

Sony/Philips DSD + mix

I value sound quality over video; however if I am going to enjoy video I want the best possible sound.

I believe that having multiple formats will allow the most popular ones to basically win the war.I personally would prefer 5.1 AC-3 as I have a setup for it however we need to accomodate those without (i.e. mix of formats)

As Thoreau said: "Simplify"

In the future I am sure we will see tastefully done, multichannel recordings. I think the format should support their development. However, the VAST majority of our recorded musical history is either mono or stereo. They should not changed to fit a new format. Instead they should be transferred as they are, in the highest possible fidelity. Therefore 24bit/96kHz is the way to go. There is still room available on a DVD to support 5.1 channels with the same fidelity.

I would prefer the same format for Film/surround sources and dedicated hifi sources. This way there would be no need to buy two different types of play back systems/decoders.

If having more channels means buying more speakers and trying to accomodate them in small rooms, then it is a bad proposition. Balancing 2 speakers in stereo in most rooms are already tedious. Having 5 speakers and a subwoofer will create havoc! I'm sure speaker & amp companies will relish in the increased sales to drive the new additional equipment, but in the long run I fear most people who can't afford large condos with big/specialised sound rooms will be turned off by such unecessary troubles (not to mention expenses) to appreciate music. There is merit in increasing the number of channels. The realm of multi channel sound home theatre is with us for good, but I don't see any advantages it will have in the realm of high fidelity sound.

how long could the recording be with this format?

5.1 channels? 2.5 X 5.500$ + 1000$(these are the prices of only speakers of mine now)- this is economical absurd.

Best quality

I also want multiple depths per side (2 or more) with both sides to be playable without having to flip disc over!.In otherwords because I believe the technology is there I want both five high quality channels and sufficent space for one film and one double (current) CD. But Parsifal would be nice on disc too!!!!!!!!