Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
What about MPEG2????
DVD audio standards are still up in the air, but promise (hopefully) to come down soon. For our inaugural question, we want to know what you prefer: fewer channels and longer playing times, or multichannel high-quality sound with shorter playing times.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!