Slashdot Mirror
AAC Chosen For DVD-ROM Section Of DVD Audio Discs
sootman writes "According to a news post at HighFidelityReview.com: 'The DVD Forum has chosen AAC for the DVD-ROM zone of DVD-Audio discs - the inclusion of a low-resolution (lossy) track suitable for solid-state and portable devices has long been championed by DVD-Audio figureheads such as Dolby's John Kellogg as a way of enhancing the value of the format to all listeners, not just those interested in its high-resolution potential. The selection of AAC came after a number of competing formats were proposed; they included MP3, ATRAC and Microsoft's WMA. Additional formats, such as [Ogg Vorbis] for example, were not put forward for consideration.'"
Is this just a matter of updating the firmware and drivers, or do I yet AGAIN have to buy new equipment?
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
DVD-Audio is dead, AC3 w/ normal, copyable DVD's has won the day.
Something about that whole "anyone can master it" thing really excites the hordes of audio engineers that I know. "Hi, ten people will be allowed to work with this" technology tends only to be worked with by ten people.
--Dan
Well assuming that you will be playing this audio under windows, what stops someone from writing a "fake" audio card driver that does nothing but dump audio into a wav file?
Actually, no. Caterpillar's line has changed drastically in recent years. The big earthmoving tractors even look different, with elevated drive sprockets. The rubber-tracked Challenger agricultural tractor looks like nothing ever seen on a farm. Most new Caterpillar machines have computers on board, and they play a much more active role in driving than car computers. Joystick control of multiple axes is common (although many machines have a hydraulic joystick system, not a computer-controlled one). GPS-based automatic driving is available for farm tractors.
There's continuous progress in heavy equipment. The field has not stagnated. "High tech" now works well enough to be trusted in tough environments like mining and construction. Everything there has been powered for decades, but now there's more smarts behind the power.
Even "mature technologies" like locomotives continue to improve. The latest generation of locomotives have servomotor-type control of all the traction motors, so they all stay in sync and there is no wheel slip. Multiple engines synch up, so they all pull evenly. Helps get all those imported products from the Port of Los Angeles over the Sierras.
Okay, before we talk frequency response let's talk sample precision. The biggest limitation of 16-bit samples is an effective 98dB of dynamic range. Today's audio engineers aren't making effective use of the CD's dynamic range, and the reality is that compressors are still being utilized despite the CD being the supposed answer to this problem, which was of course much more pronounced in the days of vinyl. I'd say the fact that compressors are still being utilized is indicative that 98dB is simply not enough for the way all music is currently being engineered, not just for orchestral recordings but for rock and other genres as well. The two solutions to this problem are a better audio engineering process (i.e. better training for audio engineers), or updating the technology to resolve the issue. I'll tell you now... the former is simply not going to happen, and I see the latter as the only practical solution.
A 24-bit system offers 146 dB of dynamic range. While this seems like something which would only appeal to audiophiles who insist on absolute perfection in their orchestral recordings, the truth is that audiophiles tend to prefer vinyl even though any vinyl, even a 78 RPM record (which has a dynamic range of ~75dB) will actually have worse dynamic range than a CD due to compromises made in the vinyl engineering/cutting process. So who then benefits from greater dynamic range? The answer is everyone... 146 dB of dynamic range is more than enough to eliminate an audio engineer's need to use compressors except in the case of the extraordinarly inept. While yes, 98 dB should've been enough as well, today's audio engineers are simply failing to make use of it properly. It's sad that a technological problem is needed to address the ineptitude of today's audio engineers, but the ultimate argument is that it's ridiculous to impose unnecessary constraints on audio engineering if better technology is capable of removing them.
This is all covered quite well in this article. And here is another article which provides support for a simple claim: uncompressed recordings sound better.
In terms of frequency response, yes, human hearing extends only to 20kHz, and the Red Book stipulates that the glass masters of all CDs should be produced by passing the final cut through a 20kHz lowpass filter (the theoretical maximum frequency response of a CD is ~22kHz). What this process ignores, however, is that higher frequencies, while inaudible, are still tangible. While this area hasn't been extensively studied and is much harder to quantify, the tangibility of a live performance versus a recorded one is one of the key distinguishing characteristics, and while most of this tangibility typically comes from the bass side of things and not the treble, simply approaching the audio engineering process from an entirely psychoacoustic perspective will leave you with sound drastically different from the live performance regardless...