Is any of this talk about format wars and new equipment relevant to the thread?
Probably less equipment than you have now....How much more equipment is needed for the new formats?
What, no piano rolls?I am thinking more of how many different pieces of hardware, how many pieces of software, and how many different kinds of recording media are necessary.
At one time I had separate players for 78, microgroove, CD-4 (short lived), AM, FM stereo, TV stereo, half-track stereo reel, quarter-track stereo reel, RCA cassette, Philips cassette, 4-track cartridge, 8-track cartridge, CD, VHS, and DVD. I ran out of space!
I have pared this down to standardgroove78 (for odd speeds), Microgroove (2 units), AM/FM stereo (part of receiver), TV stereo, Philips cassette, CD, and VHS (note that I removed most magnetic media).
How much more equipment is needed for the new formats?
Downmixing Atmos to 5.1 only involves taking the 7.1 bed and mixing the surrounds and rear surrounds together. I don't see how 96KHz sampling rate would help that. And downmix of 7.1 to stereo is known technology too, it's been around for a couple of decades.Still I think the higher frequency could benefit for people that who to downmix to 5.1 or stereo
Don't forget wire recorders! All the rage in the 1940s: Wire recording - Wikipedia. Then there's DC bias tape recorders and other esoterica, and...What, no piano rolls?
Sorry I meant for people that wanted the 5.1 or stereo downmix to be 96k as oppose to 48k since many 5.1 and stereo releases are in 96k or above.Downmixing Atmos to 5.1 only involves taking the 7.1 bed and mixing the surrounds and rear surrounds together. I don't see how 96KHz sampling rate would help that. And downmix of 7.1 to stereo is known technology too, it's been around for a couple of decades.
Again what value would that be? 48KHz 24 bit is more than enough to represent anything even a 5 year old with perfect hearing can hear. As stated earlier the only benefit of 96KHz is that on original A to D the filters can be gradual slopes and well away from any audio frequencies, rather than a hard filter that comes close to attenuating audio. Modern hard filters have got better, and you can digitise at 96KHz and then downsample to avoid the problem anyway. And on playback DACs can upsample to avoid the same issue.Sorry I meant for people that wanted the 5.1 or stereo downmix to be 96k as oppose to 48k since many 5.1 and stereo releases are in 96k or above.
No love for Edison cylinders either apparently.What, no piano rolls?
Interesting.https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/96khz-vs-192khz.31343/#post-593198
(>20 bits & >58kHz not needed)
Kirk Bayne
I remember that discussion and being unconvinced that as high as 58KHz is required.https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/threads/96khz-vs-192khz.31343/#post-593198
(>20 bits & >58kHz not needed)
Yes 48k is fully transparent to the mic feed.Or are we simply in a "bigger numbers better" situation,
Enter your email address to join: