Curt962;529674 Wrote: > > It seems the music industry itself isn't concerned with providing the > highest resolution possible. They could, but without a viable market > (read: BIG market) it simply isn't on their radar screen. >
A sole focus on maximum quality has never been true in the history of recorded audio, whether you're talking downloads, the introduction of the CD almost 30 years ago, or the introduction of the 33 RPM LP in 1948 or 78s and wax cylinders before that. Simply put, the industry has to sell large commercial quantities of its music in order to stay in business. So when the "committee" gets together to define the standards for the music format du jour, there are always a lot of variables in play and a compromise at some level is inevitable. LPs just suffered from a different version of the time vs quality compromise that CDs and subsequent digital formats have had to face. Dan Lavry even has even discussed the disadvantages of having too high a sampling rate; it can actually reduce accuracy. For example, he states that it isn't hard to get 24 bit accuracy at 10KHz, but if you need a 1 GHz signal, you'd be lucky to get 6 bit accuracy. So the increase to very high sample rates comes with a price tag other than just file size and needed processing power. If one is not mixing and editing multi-track files, what purpose is being served at 192K sample rates? In many ways audio is just like any other engineering task. Good design is a matter of picking the compromises that make the most sense. And it is also inevitable there will be differing opinions about the best choice. -- mlsstl ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9598 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=76496 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
