Actually, it's usually the professional/producer side that drives *media-based* tech innovation. This has been true of HD video, advances in audio, etc.
-JavaJones
I didn't mean to address WHO drives it - only what tools do. Those are generally hardware.
I have no problem with 24/192 being used in the studio, or at least being available for those who want to use it. The natural progression is then for the speakers that can reproduce it to be developed for high-end studio purposes, then be bought/available for rich people who can afford it, then it ultimately becomes mass market and cheap enough for the average person to buy.
-JavaJones
Bang on the money there!
That's *if* the technology actually catches on, and *if* it can be produced in a form that is not so delicate or subject to home environment variables that it doesn't work out.
-JavaJones
Yep. That's how we ended up with VHS instead of Beta.
So basically I'm just saying that making Pono available now as a home listening technology is pointless and wasteful. By all means keep using it in studios, but let's wait until we can actually hear the difference, at which time great, a format is waiting in the wings.
-JavaJones
But in 10 years, do you want to buy everything again? It's a gamble. I'm not sure I'd buy into Pono without the equipment to use it. I'm also not really a big fan of proprietary formats.
So, no, the conclusions in the Xiph article are right on.
-JavaJones
We're not going to agree there. I think they're wrong for reasons different than they've presented, and for evidential reasons that have largely been ignored.
And you CAN take advantage of some of that today in the LFE zone down to about 16 Hz in some subwoofers.
** After a quick browse around, I've not seen any subwoofers going below 16 Hz, and I don't recall any off-hand going lower. There may be some that go lower.
HOWEVER!
In the headphone space you can get headphones that go down MUCH lower than 16 HZ.
http://www.fostexint...ducts/TH-900.shtml#3That goes down to 5 Hz.
Can we say
BOOM~?They also go up to 45 KHz, so there's a solid doubling above human hearing there, which isn't unrealistic for high energy, high frequency sounds to affect harmonics down the line.
My own headphones are AKG K240 MKIIs:
http://www.akg.com/K...d=1194&techspecsThey have a response between 15 Hz to 25 KHz.
So, I *could* see ghosts!
It seems like we're actually in general agreement in terms of *right here and now* and *for the home user*.
-JavaJones
On the practical side, absolutely. MP3 is good enough for most people.
You just have a different idea of how the progression of technology works. -JavaJones
Yes, but that really wasn't the point that I was trying to make. I went on to that because you brought it into the discussion. Still fun though!
I see little value in making content available without devices that can reproduce it. -JavaJones
Well, we're getting there. 5 Hz is pretty damn low. Doubling the effectiveness of the technology would only get you to 2.5 Hz, which includes the bottom of a tiger's roar. It's a fight to the bottom there.
So, at the low end, we do have equipment that is doing pretty damn good. It's the high end where we're lacking.
This is akin to selling 3D video *content* before you have even *invented* 3D TVs! The way it actually went was 3D TVs came out and there was very, very limited content, but their growing adoption drove content production. Think about it in the context of this debate...
-JavaJones
Well, yes and no. It's like selling 3D content that plays in a regular TV, but is way better in a 3D TV, that may never be produced.
Audio is like the bastard red-headed step-child: Nobody pays attention to the poor kid until the laundry and dishes aren't done and everyone is hungry and naked.
People like pictures. Video. Things they can see.
Audio is transitory, but pictures you can hang on your wall.
Given the destruction of and war on the middle class, I have a hard time imagining it being very profitable for audio companies to invest all that much into better products.
Just look at telephony. It sucks. We still have the same basic crap from about a century ago. It's not really improved all that much compared to other technologies. I hate using my phone. The sound quality is horrendous. Skype is better because it's not limited by legacy crap that telcos refuse to upgrade.
So... while I won't concede any of my theoretical points, I will concede the practical point for reasons very different from the Xiph article's reasons, and more in line with what you've outlined here - we are unlikely to get better audio reproduction equipment. (It will remain almost exclusively for military or para-military use.)
Recent Posts
