Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In order to become commonplace, the technology has to become very cheap to
make and to use, and that is currently becoming the case with the new

digital
3D systems. It certainly wasn't the case back in the fifties.


Right, and also requires people to want to bother. I'm not saying it will
never happen of course, but it's still a while off IMO.


People will never opt for a better quality presentation or format over a
less expensive one. Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?


Because there was NO improvement at all for the consumer, just added
expense.


And Elcaset, and half-track 1/4" for home use?


Well I at least used 4 track 1/4" R-R for MANY years. That was a huge
improvement over cassette at least. Unfortunately Elcaset was too big, and
too expensive for the masses (and provided little benefit for those of us
with R-R) But more importantly was far too late, and the digital age killed
it stone dead.

MrT.


  #202   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/26/2010 2:04 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Be thankful you don't have to turn a crank to get the
operator's attention....:^)


I wish I could turn a crank to get the attention of the
Verizon tech support people every now and then. The generate
a hundred volts or so, don't they? Verizon will do, and tell
you, anything before they will admit that the problem is on
their end, but in the end, it always is.


But this is par for the course, don't you think? Right now, I have a problem
where my printer sometimes prints stuff in what I call (for a better term)
"save the ink mode". The printing is weak and without contrast. The stuff is
usually in PDF format, but not always. If I call HP (the printer
manufacturer) they will blame it on Adobe, who wrote the PDF program. If I
complain to Adobe, they will blame it on the printer. And, (of course) they
all tell me I am running out of ink. But nobody can tell me how to fix it. I
know it is doable, because when I buy something from the internet, and they
let me print a receipt, it almost always prints in that washed out
no-contrast text (save the ink mode) so I am sure their programmers know how
to do it (and undo it) but nobody will let me talk to programmers. Their
time is way to valuable to let them talk to customers like me. I have
diabetes, and am gradually going blind. I need all the contrast I can get.
If I knew how to do it, I would tear into my printer and hard wire it to
never print in save the ink mode.....

  #203   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

The only " true stereo" television I ever saw was in a radiation
lab, where they handled radioactive materials remotely with robot
arms and hands, and needed the stereo so they could judge distance
and not drop stuff. They had two cameras 2-1/2 inches apart, and two
seperte channels....One for each eye. The picture you got was just
like being there, and when you put your hand in the glove and
reached out to pick up something, the robot arm reached out just
like you did. All this red and green glasses stuff they were showing
the kids in the movies was a joke compared to that.


If you have never seen real polarized stereo films, you need to watch
one.
It is a very different experience.

When all those 1950s 3-D films were originally screened on their
first run, they were shown in polarized formats. This required
either two linked projectors with a bicycle chain keeping them in
synch and polarizers on
the lenses, or a single-strip system where a mirror box would be
placed
in front of the screen the direct the top and bottom halves of the
frame (each one image) through different polarizers and onto the
screen. It also required a silver screen that would reflect the
image properly polarized.

Because this arrangement was not possible at smaller theatres, when
those films went on their second run out into the hinterlands they
were often shown in anaglyph red-green or red-blue format. The
anaglyph systems looked terrible and nobody at the studios ever took
them as anything other than
a poor stepchild of regular polarized-image 3-D.

You will occasionally still see those old films shown in proper
polarized 3-D now and then. I work at a science fiction convention
up in Boston where a couple years ago we ran It Came From Outer Space
in proper 3-D. It was
a very different thing than the anaglyph and folks in the audience
were amazed by it.
--scott


Yes. True stereo is a wonderful thing. For years, I took photos with a
Stereo Realist camera. It took two color slides at the same time through two
lenses that were 2-1/2 inches apart, and the photo lab would mount them both
on the same cardboard frame so you could view them together in a stereo
viewer. the realism was astounding, but of course, they were stills, and not
motion pictures. I understand that building the same thing into a movie
camera would be very expensive, and it would be virtually impossible to show
it to an audience in a movie theater. Today, however, television makes such
a thing a lot more plausable. You could build a stereo viewer that you could
peer into in your living room, and with two seperate TV channels, (one for
each eye) you could produce and transmit stereo video programs to the
viewing public. I really don't know why somebody hasn't done this.

  #204   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone
service. I read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the
digit dialing system, every woman in the US between the ages of 18
and 80 would have to work for the telephone company.


I suppose you could call a #5 crossbar a "computer" even though it's
not a von neumann machine....
--scott


Yes. I use the term "computer" to describe any mechanical switching machine
that doesn't require an operator plugging and unplugging wires.

  #205   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Ben Bradley wrote:
In rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp, On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:47:54
-0800, "Bill Graham" wrote:

Dick Pierce wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent
headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally
seperated channels of sound.

That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether.
Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would
be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and
center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and
record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and
another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right"
channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two
transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as
near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New
York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center
for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better
than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is?

Scott already told you, it's binaural.


I understand that. You have defined, "binaural". But bear in mind
that this is a, "pro audio" definition, and not a wording that an
amateur like me, who doesn't need to memorize such definitions, but
rather goes with the plain English he was taught by 75 years of
living, will use. I'm not saying my definition is better. I am just
saying that it is a definition I understand.


I heard the word binaural fairly often on that "Audiophile
Audition" radio show that was on the local classical station many
years ago. Those guys were really into it.


Yes. Do you remember, "Excursions in stereo" on the FM radio? I forget the
name of the moderator now, but he went on to become quite famous in the
radio/TV business.....



  #206   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message


Yeah, but part of Apple's money comes from the
desperation of computer owners who are sick of fighting
with Microsoft's screwed up operating system.


Obvious excluded-middle thinking. Just because altenatives exist and
some people prefer various of them does not prove that any of them
are fouled-up. Completely ignores the relevance of preferences.


Errrrr....I guess you missed where I said, "PART".
  #207   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mr.T wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
If we didn't have the computers, we wouldn't have the telephone
service. I read way back in the 80's that if it weren't for the
digit dialing system, every woman in the US between the ages of 18
and 80 would have to work for the telephone company.


Nope, because few people could afford to make phone calls, certainly
not all those ladies you think would be working the switchboards!

MrT.


Yes. The quote was a statement of the mechanics of doing it, and not the
economic implications. I doubt if there would be enough women available to
satisfy their needs, so it really couldn't be done. Today, you could say
much the same thing about computers. There aren't enough people on the whole
earth to perform all the things that are accomplished by computers today. So
these things just wouldn't be done were it not for them.

  #209   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/27/2010 2:38 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Today, you could say much the same thing
about computers. There aren't enough people on the whole
earth to perform all the things that are accomplished by
computers today. So these things just wouldn't be done were
it not for them.


Yeah, but then some of them don't REALLY need to be done.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #210   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/26/2010 8:36 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

There are now any number of well-publicized carefully-done listening tests
that demonstrate the ineffectivness of increasing word sizes and sampling
rates beyond those used in the CD-A format, *for the purposes of final
distribution to the end-user*. That says that the alleged benefits the SACD
and DVD-A formats (both consumer dsitribution formats) are not detectible in
blind tests. Hand-picking program material does not seem to help.


I suspect that the real reason why people think that SACD
sounds better is that those who care about it have better
equipment overall than those who play CDs ripped to MP3
files in their car or play DVSs in their living room. You
don't find too many people with a $250 K-Mart Home Theater
In A Box buying SACD disks, or even knowing if their DVD
player can play them.

I've seen 3D TV demonstrated, and its one of those things that you don't
really need a blind test to distinguish from 2D TV with an appropriate
choice of program material.


Our local SMPTE chapter had a program on 3D TV a couple of
weeks ago. I watched it for about 5 minutes and got seasick.
The program was about jellyfish.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff


  #211   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/27/2010 2:29 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. Do you remember, "Excursions in stereo" on the FM
radio? I forget the name of the moderator now, but he went
on to become quite famous in the radio/TV business.....


I remember when WGMS used to broadcast stereo concerts fed
live from the National Gallery of Art, using FM for one
channel and AM for the other. You'd put two radios a few
feet apart (assuming you had an AM and an FM radio - we
didn't, for a long time) and hear stereo.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #212   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/26/2010 5:23 PM, Randy Yates wrote:

Next year marks five years as linux for my main
OS. I've never wanted to go back.


I find it odd that one needs a "main OS." Can't we just have
functions and not worry about the OS? That would be very
nice indeed.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #213   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts[_2_] Jay Ts[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:

Next year marks five years as linux for my main OS. I've never wanted
to go back.


I find it odd that one needs a "main OS." Can't we just have functions
and not worry about the OS? That would be very nice indeed.


It would be nice. But it would require that Adobe and many other
companies (name your favorite audio apps) equally support all
operating systems. This is impractical, especially for small
software companies.

So, OS choice is still important. I have both Linux/Unix and Windows
skills, so I can run Internet and Open Source apps on Linux, and use
Windows for desktop and audio apps. I think this is optimal, but
it requires advanced computer skills, and it's more complicated
than using just one operating system.

Jay Ts
  #214   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil Gould Neil Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 872
Default dBFS

Jay Ts wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
Randy Yates wrote:

Next year marks five years as linux for my main OS. I've never
wanted to go back.


I find it odd that one needs a "main OS." Can't we just have
functions and not worry about the OS? That would be very nice
indeed.


It would be nice. But it would require that Adobe and many other
companies (name your favorite audio apps) equally support all
operating systems. This is impractical, especially for small
software companies.

So, OS choice is still important. I have both Linux/Unix and Windows
skills, so I can run Internet and Open Source apps on Linux, and use
Windows for desktop and audio apps. I think this is optimal, but
it requires advanced computer skills, and it's more complicated
than using just one operating system.

Why should it be more complicated than _using_ just one operating system,
assuming that none of the OSs are strictly command-line iterfaces? There can
be more variance between different computers running the same OS for
different tasks (e.g. graphics vs. accounting) than between different OSs
for the same task (e.g. audio apps).

--
Neil







  #215   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

In article , Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?


Umm, because they were snake oil?


Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market. Look at Bose.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #217   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message



Yeah, but part of Apple's money comes from the
desperation of computer owners who are sick of fighting
with Microsoft's screwed up operating system.


Obvious excluded-middle thinking. Just because
altenatives exist and some people prefer various of them
does not prove that any of them are fouled-up.


Yes, you're right. It does not prove that. Instead, we
can rely on an entire universe of data supporting the
assertion that windows is fu**ed up.

Completely ignores the relevance of preferences.


Uh, arny, when he says:


"PART of Apple's money comes from the desperation of
computer owners,"


Which part of "part" says "completely" to you?


There's a fair number of people who had one Apple and swear they'll never do
it again. Ditto for *nix. Some of those choices are probably due a perfect
storm of failures or inconveniences which may even include some true and
genuine problems that are inherent to the relevant OS. Then there are people
who are simply responding to their preferences.


  #218   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Richard Dobson" wrote in
message
On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?


Umm, because they were snake oil?


DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which
(unlike DVD-A) employs DSD, unless you consider
multi-channel surround as snake oil.


You seem to be badly confused. DVD-A and DSD are a whole different thing
than multichannel. They failed, while multichannel has been mainstream in
the home for at least a decade, and were mainstream in theatres for at least
a decade before that. One of the lesser reasons that DVD-A and DSD failed
was their inconsistent handling of multichannel.

The fact that the
great public at large seems not to consider surround
important at all except for the (mostly) relatively
primitive examples of it in films, does nothing to
invalidate consumer audio delivery formats supporting
multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only).


Now you seem to be stealthily changing issues by means of synonyms.
Multichannel and surround are actually two different things. Multichannel
generally means 2 channels, while surround refers to speakers next to or
behind the listener. The popularity of "sound bar" speakers tells me that
multichannel, specificially trying to do rght by the center channel is
selling well. They also tell me that weak to non-existent reproduction of
surround effects is not a deal-breaker.

Of course,
there is little point in buying recordings in either
format if you are only going to play them in stereo. In
which case, DSD is much the same distillation of snake
oil as Dolby 5.1.


Which formats are "either format"?If you're referring to DSD and DVD-A, then
we know that they were as much 2-chanel formats as anything. If you mean
Dolby Digital and Dolby TrueHD then you're ignoring the fact that they are
often and perhaps even generally comptible with 2-channel playback.


  #219   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Richard Dobson Richard Dobson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default dBFS

On 27/11/2010 17:36, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Richard wrote in
message
On 27/11/2010 07:38, Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?

Umm, because they were snake oil?


DVD-A is/was hardly snake oil,any more than SACD, which
(unlike DVD-A) employs DSD, unless you consider
multi-channel surround as snake oil.


You seem to be badly confused. DVD-A and DSD are a whole different thing
than multichannel.


Actually, I have no interest in or opinion on DSD (which stands in
contra-distinction to PCM - nothing to do with surround as such). DVD-A
and SACD were/are delivery formats for (among other things) surround
sound audio (with the option of higher sample rates than CD), delivered
virtually exclusively for the 5.1 speaker layout. That is arguably
their only real point of interest, unless you are the type who
incessantly argues the pros and cons of this or that sample rate, etc.


They failed, while multichannel has been mainstream in
the home for at least a decade, and were mainstream in theatres for at least
a decade before that. One of the lesser reasons that DVD-A and DSD failed
was their inconsistent handling of multichannel.


Begs the question of what "consistent" means. 5.1 is simply a delivery
format to a defined speaker layout. The audio content may be anything
from five independent discrete signals, to a B-Format decoded horzontal
soundfield, via any number of variations of pair-wise intensity panning.
That is decided by the artist/engineer, not by the delivery format.
Surround sound artists are limited by the available multi-channel
reproduction formats.


The fact that the
great public at large seems not to consider surround
important at all except for the (mostly) relatively
primitive examples of it in films, does nothing to
invalidate consumer audio delivery formats supporting
multi-channel audio (albeit horizontal-only).


Now you seem to be stealthily changing issues by means of synonyms.
Multichannel and surround are actually two different things. Multichannel
generally means 2 channels, while surround refers to speakers next to or
behind the listener.


Or above and below. It that really all you think surround means - the
location of a few extra speakers? It is really the content - as above,
either discrete per-speaker signals, or some number of arbitrary
pair-wise panned phantom images (which doesn't work well for lateral
images, which is why so much film surround audio is so poor), or a more
or less complete representation of the soundfield. 5.1 being so
irregular a layout, it is very difficult to achieve a "consistent"
surround image with it. A regular layout such as a hexagon or cube (for
with-height reproduction) is so much better. There is a whole world of
surround sound audio technology out there (by no means predicated on a
dominant front stage) that people who know only about 5.1 are hardly
aware of at all.


Of course,
there is little point in buying recordings in either
format if you are only going to play them in stereo. In
which case, DSD is much the same distillation of snake
oil as Dolby 5.1.


Which formats are "either format"?If you're referring to DSD and DVD-A,



I was referring to DVD-A v SACD. I guess DVD-A recordings are pretty
scarce, but SACD (which would seem to have largely won the format war)
is still very much an active medium, with a steady stream of new
releases each year. But in no way can either DVD-A or SACD be considered
snake oil - they do exactly what they are defined to do, which is to
deliver surround sound/multi-channel audio; within (or despite) the
limits imposed by the compromised 5.1 layout.

One useful advantage of the DVD-A format is that you can DIY using
standard DVD authoring tools and DVD blanks. SACD production is a whole
different can of worms.

Richard Dobson



  #220   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/27/2010 2:38 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Today, you could say much the same thing
about computers. There aren't enough people on the whole
earth to perform all the things that are accomplished by
computers today. So these things just wouldn't be done were
it not for them.


Yeah, but then some of them don't REALLY need to be done.


I suspect that most of them don't really need to be done. But computers make
their own work. I live a completely different life style today because of
them. I pursue hobbies that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago. 50
million teenagers are talking to each other in the malls today
(unnecessarily) because of computers.



  #221   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Bill Graham Bill Graham is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 763
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/27/2010 2:29 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Yes. Do you remember, "Excursions in stereo" on the FM
radio? I forget the name of the moderator now, but he went
on to become quite famous in the radio/TV business.....


I remember when WGMS used to broadcast stereo concerts fed
live from the National Gallery of Art, using FM for one
channel and AM for the other. You'd put two radios a few
feet apart (assuming you had an AM and an FM radio - we
didn't, for a long time) and hear stereo.


Wow! That does go way back.....The guy I was thinking about was James
Gabbert......Here is a link to his show:
http://www.bayarearadio.org/audio/kp...959-1960.shtml

  #222   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?


Umm, because they were snake oil?


Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market. Look at Bose.


Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and there wasn't nearly
enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some reason their heart just wasn't in the con
that time.

MrT.




  #223   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?

Umm, because they were snake oil?


Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market. Look at Bose.


Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and there wasn't nearly
enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some reason their heart just wasn't in the con
that time.


I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more than
any other recording system. But it's true that surround audio-only playback
failed back in the seventies, mostly due to the program material, and so I
am not really all that surprised that it has failed again.

People don't want accurate reproduction, they want gimmicks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #224   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more

than
any other recording system.


Me either, *IF* it was just about surround playback. (even though I can't
really see the need myself)
The systems however were promoted on the idea of higher audio quality with
the unstated agenda being increased copy protection.

MrT.


  #225   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at least no more

than
any other recording system.


Me either, *IF* it was just about surround playback. (even though I can't
really see the need myself)
The systems however were promoted on the idea of higher audio quality with
the unstated agenda being increased copy protection.


Sure, but we have seen increased copy protection with every digital release
system. That's just normal and to be expected, and just like SCMS it will
rapidly be defeated by the people who want to defeat it because technical
solutions to social problems never work.

What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to
have surround recordings. Since there is a large installed base of surround
playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
would expect this to have some demand. But it really doesn't.

People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
worth paying for.

The increased sample rate or DSD encoding is just a free bonus that comes
along for the ride and wouldn't be a selling point even if it did increase
sound quality substantially over the CD.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #226   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to
have surround recordings. Since there is a large installed base of

surround
playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
would expect this to have some demand. But it really doesn't.


I didn't expect a big demand. Why pay more for audio only DVD's when you can
already get surround sound music DVD's with vision included for less? But
the real question is why they thought people would want to pay for
completely new systems like SACD?


People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
worth paying for.


As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
choosing, just as I do.


The increased sample rate or DSD encoding is just a free bonus that comes
along for the ride and wouldn't be a selling point even if it did increase
sound quality substantially over the CD.


It's definitely not free IF you have to buy an expensive SACD player, and
you can already get surround sound music DVD's with video included for less
money!

You may be able to fool most of the people most of the time, but not all of
the time! :-)

MrT.


  #227   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Why do you think DVD-A and DSD failed?

Umm, because they were snake oil?

Snake oil usually does pretty well in the market. Look
at Bose.


Dead right, but it does require a lot of marketing, and
there wasn't nearly enough for DVD-A and DSD. For some
reason their heart just wasn't in the con that time.


I'm not sure I'd call surround playback a con per se, at
least no more than any other recording system. But it's
true that surround audio-only playback failed back in the
seventies, mostly due to the program material, and so I
am not really all that surprised that it has failed
again.


I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk. It's a matter of the
right tool for the job. The two-channel audio market has a bright future
because of the pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio market is
generally A/V. Very few people sit down with their families and listen to
2-channel audio. Just about everybody who dedicates some personal or family
time to media at home is currently using a surround system or at least a
system that is surround capable.

People don't want accurate reproduction, they want
gimmicks. --scott


Accurate reproduction could only have a global meaning if there were a
consistent standard for it.

About as good as it gets right now is an audio system that presents a
convincing sonic image which implies plausable timbre and imaging. There's
a nasty gap between accuracy and plausability, but plausability is about as
good as it gets right now.

At the ABX level or sonic differences, there's no such thing as accurate
speakers or microphones, for example. As audio practitioners we all know
that you get a different sound out of a speaker or a mic about every 6
inches or 5 degrees we move them. Large increments if they are far away.


  #228   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
What sells DVD-A and SACD into the market, over CD, is the ability to
have surround recordings. Since there is a large installed base of

surround
playback systems in homes, as a consequence of the home theatre craze, you
would expect this to have some demand. But it really doesn't.


I didn't expect a big demand. Why pay more for audio only DVD's when you can
already get surround sound music DVD's with vision included for less? But
the real question is why they thought people would want to pay for
completely new systems like SACD?


Well, that's another question... are people buying surround sound music DVDs
with vision included?

People have the ability to play the stuff back but they don't see it
worth paying for.


As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
choosing, just as I do.


I don't see that selling particularly well at all either. From a technical
standpoint, I think the required lossy compression is a big problem with
those, but the average listener doesn't care. On the other hand, sales still
remains way down.

WAY, way down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #229   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk. It's a matter of the
right tool for the job. The two-channel audio market has a bright future
because of the pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio market is
generally A/V. Very few people sit down with their families and listen to
2-channel audio. Just about everybody who dedicates some personal or family
time to media at home is currently using a surround system or at least a
system that is surround capable.


Right, but they aren't buying the media.

People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
to play back.

Sales are WAY, way down.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #230   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default dBFS

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I don't get this "surround audio has failed" talk. It's
a matter of the right tool for the job. The two-channel
audio market has a bright future because of the
pervasiveness of personal audio. The surround audio
market is generally A/V. Very few people sit down with
their families and listen to 2-channel audio. Just about
everybody who dedicates some personal or family time to
media at home is currently using a surround system or at
least a system that is surround capable.


Right, but they aren't buying the media.

People have the equipment to play it back, but they
aren't buying anything to play back.


Sales are WAY, way down.


I'm sure that media rentals and downloads have a lot to do with sales going
down.

I spent a fair time this weekend with my wife mixing downloads and rentals
via Netflix.




  #231   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default dBFS

On 11/29/2010 10:45 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
to play back.


I suspect that most surround audio comes from movies and
games, not music for music's sake. Yet nearly all of the
studios, even smaller ones, that get featured in magazines
like Mix are set up for surround and say they're doing a lot
of surround mixes.

I dunno. My stereo still works.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
  #232   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default dBFS

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/29/2010 10:45 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
to play back.


I suspect that most surround audio comes from movies and
games, not music for music's sake. Yet nearly all of the
studios, even smaller ones, that get featured in magazines
like Mix are set up for surround and say they're doing a lot
of surround mixes.


Yup, they are, and those surround mixes are going into films and games,
which right now is a much more lucrative business than music for music's
sake.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #233   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Right, but they aren't buying the media.

People have the equipment to play it back, but they aren't buying anything
to play back.

Sales are WAY, way down.


The sales of music DVD's (most come with surround audio as well as two
channel) in Australia seems to be pretty strong to me. My local shop has
thousands, and I'm sure they actually sell some. (I've got well over 100
myself) Their profits are healthy despite a downturn in sales of TV's which
was their biggest money spinner for a while, so they can't be losing money
on CD and DVD sales which is their only other source of income.
(they do sell some audio equipment and cameras, but it's a fairly minimal
sideline)

As I've said all along, most people seem to be drawing the line at paying
more for DVDA without vision, but DVD sales are still strong. I'm not
convinced the USA is all that different either without some evidence. I
think you are simply choosing to ignore where the real sale of surround
audio is.

MrT.


  #234   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default dBFS


"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Well, that's another question... are people buying surround sound music

DVDs
with vision included?


They are here. I bet the sales outnumber DVDA and SACD combined by 100:1 at
least. probably 1000:1 or more.


As I said, they are buying HEAPS, it's the vision included stuff they are
choosing, just as I do.


I don't see that selling particularly well at all either. From a

technical
standpoint, I think the required lossy compression is a big problem with
those, but the average listener doesn't care. On the other hand, sales

still
remains way down.

WAY, way down.


Well you would have to spell out WAY DOWN on WHAT, and then provide some
data for that statement to have any meaning at all.

MrT.




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
manipulate 24 bit audio to increment amplitude by 1 dBFS genlock Tech 14 April 4th 05 04:20 PM
Line Input Level for 0 dBFS? Len Moskowitz Pro Audio 12 December 5th 04 03:41 PM
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? Jakeman Pro Audio 2 November 21st 04 10:00 PM
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? Jakeman Pro Audio 0 November 21st 04 07:18 PM
Classical program ff = ?dbFS WillStG Pro Audio 21 November 15th 03 12:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"