Wasting away in 44kville

[Zep Dude]

It is beginning to strike me as odd that "Pro" Tools is not capable of recording at the consumer DVD standard of 96k. When else in history has pro gear been of lower fidelity than consumer gear.

What a waste that all the projects we work so hard on today are by definition already antiquated because they do not meet consumer 96k spec.

[mixinmono]

Consumer standard of 96k? What standard is that? Have there been any 96k production out on the market?

[Zep Dude]

well uhh...yes...perhaps you should visit your local electronics store and check out something called a DVD player...

[mixinmono]

I know DVD players exist. Is there 2 channel 96 kHz stuff out there? Do you have production specs? Are there DVDs with 6 channels of 96 kHz each? I'm really ingnorant about this stuff. Please inform me!

[Peter Steinbach]

Afraid it's true Zep. There are a few DVD players which are capable of 24/96, but there have not been any DVDs released at that rate so far. oh well....The consotium is still hammering out the details etc etc blah blah blah
-p

[This message has been edited by Peter Steinbach (edited February 02, 2001).]

[Zep Dude]

...but that further supports my point -consumer mechanisms are more powerful than Pro Tools. They are 24/96 capable but we are not. There are several other recording systems that are already doing 96K and although they have to be temporarily downgraded to accomodate 16/44.1, within a year or so, the original mixes will be able to be released at full fidelity. We are forced to be putting out material that is instantly antiquated because it does not take full advantage of consumer spec.

I am about to embark on a full album done in PT and really regret that none of these tracks will ever be 96k. In a few years these recordings will be considered substandard having been done at 44.1 and there is no way to ever change that (OK, maybe since I'm doing drums to 2", we could retransfer them again at 96k and be able to claim "partial full fidelity"). My point is that the technology exists --many converters are 96K-- so there is no reason we should be still stuck with 44/48k. If Digi is courting pro users, they should be providing 96k -in some form.

[moosh]

Consumers don't care about 96k. They are happy with the sound quality of mp3. Not saying that it wouldn't be cool to have the option. But seriously. I work with platinum seloing producers who are still using black-face ADATs. The general consesus is that if it aint a hit at 44.1/16, then it aint a hit at 96/26.

[Greg Malcangi]

Hi Zep Dude,

I think you need to read up on the specs for DVD-Audio. Unlike CD (16bit, 44.1kHz, stereo), DVD-Audio is not a single format medium. You can put almost any format audio you want on to a DVD. So true, one of the DVD standards is multi-channel 24bit, 96kHz. However, another DVD-A standard is multi-channel 24bit, 192kHz. DVD-A also supports the CD standard as well as standards of a lower quality than CD.

These standards are all laid out in the DVD-Audio specifications. However, please note these are technical specifications, NOT consumer standards. The vast majority of DVD players in use do not support the 24bit, 96kHz standard so it can't in anyway be described as a consumer standard. And as far as I know there are no DVD players on the market (consumer or pro-audio) which support the 192kHz DVD-A standard.

The DVD-Audio specifications were delibarately designed to overcome one of the greatest limitations of the CD-Audio. Namely that a single format medium will eventually lag behind technological improvement in digital audio resolution. The DVD-Audio specifications therefore contain a whole range of different standards, some of which are not yet technically possible to impliment but are designed to give the DVD format the ability to keep up with future advances in the recording industry.

Greg

[Zep Dude]

Greg, I've been to some of the AES panels on DVD-A, and as you yourself stated, one of the standards is 24/96, which is the only thing I'm discussing.

But more to the point, I'm looking at a J&R Catalog right now at an entire page of DVD players which advertise 24/96. That certainly fits my definition of 'consumer'. My point is that the technology is already in place for pros -there are other less pro systems than PT that have supported 96k for a while -the technology is in place for consumers -as stated in the very 'consumer' pages of J&R Music- so why are we still making records with a 20 year old format?

And moosh, I agree with you and one step further: if it ain't a hit out of a 1" speaker on the cheapest portable tape deck, it ain't a hit at 24/96, but that doesn't mean we record and mix for the lowest possible usage of our music.

(pardon all the uses of the '-', but I just finished a Tom Wolff novel and have been influenced by his frequent usage of them)

[snoopy]

I try not to concider myself in a race with consumer products. I don't think my work is going to hell because it's at 24/44.1 instead of 96k either. Sure it will be nice, but it hasn't held back music before its exsistance and I don't think it's what dermines the tag "pro". My 2 cents