179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← back to listing · view thread

From:
EggyToast
To:
Shawn
Cc:
Date:
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:45:37 -0500
Subject:
Re: [idm] mass storage // MP3's
Msg-Id:
<5.1.0.14.2.20020716224414.00b6cfb0@mail.eggytoast.com>
In-Reply-To:
<LAW2-OE42gYUB3ye4PD000015a8@hotmail.com>
Mbox:
idm.0207.gz
At 03:20 PM 7/17/2002 +1200, Shawn wrote:
quoted 9 lines as far as I'm aware the only benefit of 96khz recordings is that you can>as far as I'm aware the only benefit of 96khz recordings is that you can >really intensively digitally edit them and experience less loss than you >would at 44.1/48khz. >now I havent heard a 24bit recording (yet), but I can say I've heard 20bit >CD releases, and the difference was staggering :D I would definetly pay >extra for some albums to get that extra shine..I think the aural exciter >really pays off at this quality ;) >I think Cds will be backwards compatible for a long time yet, and for tthe >majority of music released on them, 16/44.1 is good enough :)
If they release DVD's with this, they'll OBVIOUSLY do them in multiple formats. It just makes sense with all the space they have to make sure they're compatible with older players and styles. Granted, DVD quality may be high enough anyway so consumers won't matter, but it wouldn't really surprise me if they came out with something that was dual-compatible or something funky like that. Are all modern dvd players equipped to deal with high bitrate audio? That'd be pretty cool :) derek ------- eggytoast.com ------- with lather thingy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org