martin1970

That stepped-looking response is misleading. The magic that's actully happening is lots of fancy math is used and the sine wave is reconstructed using those data points. As it turns out, you only need two of those data points per cycle to have enough information to rebuild the waveform. That's called Nyquist theory or somesuch and is pretty well agreed upon. The upshot of is is that if you sample 44,100 times a second, you can accurately rebuild waveforms of frequencies up to 22,050 Hz on a CD and much much higher with DVD Audio. The part that's perhaps a bit less certain is whether or not reconstructing with resolution beyond 20 kHz can be perceived. I think it's an oversimplification to just dismiss doing this simply because we can't hear higher than 16kHz or so. Tiny delays in sound arrivals allow us to tell what direction a sound comes from. We can't say "Ooh, I sensed a 30 microsecond delay." But, we can point to where we think a sound came from based on the arrival time to our two ears.

Sorry if that wasn't clear. It is now possible for regular people to make exact digital copies of SACDs. As far as I know, it was the last significant digital audio format to be cracked, in other words, to have the copy-protection defeated.

Wait a minute, I forgot, we're talking about the RIAA here. Now that the last audio format has been cracked (SACD), they have to invent another one so that they can resurrect their glory days of raping artists and consumers alike. Maybe they've finally reached their goal of creating a format with 1000 bit encryption and a 3dB dynamic range!

I thought we already had several high def formats. wave flac dsd dvdaudio I read it like he was just saying we'd start seeing the industry marketing it more.

#1 on January 28th. Pretty good tune, actually. Looks like Michael really was black. Very cool relating everyone's age to #1 songs.

Absolutely! He has one heck of a good ear for this stuff. If he was the guy making the decisions on how today's music would be mastered, we'd be in the golden age of audio right now. He's forgotten more about audio than I can ever hope to learn. I was mercilessly nagging him to make another CD at the fest and he never let on for a second that he already had. They later gave them away as a surprise.

Let's talk about Tori Amos. Now, I know many consider her stuff to be lesbian music, kind of like the musical version of a chick flick, but she had a great run of a couple of albums: Little Earthquakes and Under the Pink. If you don't know her, she's kind of posh British-sounding sometimes, even though she's from somewhere in Carolina. I was never attracted to her per se, but after years of seeing her on the album covers and getting mind-fu**ed by her opaque oft-dense lyrics, somehow I find myself with a bit of a thing for smart redheads. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell a cornflake girl is. And when she says, "God, sometimes, you don't come through." Is she talking to a lover, or referring to God? I spent years subconsciously pondering this shit, never really being able to connect the dots. It's the same thing, I suppose, that kept me going on Pink Floyd. Pretty Good Music, with promise of something deeper under the surface that you never can quite grasp; always tantalizingly close, yet just out of reach. But anyway, this is getting long. So, she follows up these two amazing albums with this stinking piece of, um, well, you get the idea. Yeah, that's right, she's breast-feeding a pig. I should have known then. Perhaps the title: Boys For Pele should have stopped me dead. It did kind of conjure up images of soccer ball wielding pedophiles, hmmm ... The real meaning of the title is even worse. In her own words:"First I wanted to sacrifice all these guys to the volcano goddess (Pele) and roast them like marshmallows, then I decided they gave me a really wonderful gift." She's referring to her ex boyfriends. Alanis Morrisette's You Ought to Know spewed that scorned rage in a way we all could appreciate, but Tori's reaction to rejection was just too deep and intellectually obscure and well, musically uninspired to offer any hope for this stinking piece of - (oh, that's right, I already called it that). Ironically, it debuted at #2 simultaneously in the US and the UK. I'm sure there were millions of us back in 1996 wishing we could have our $20 back. Maybe I'll try it again. It's been fifteen years, perhaps I'm more in touch with my inner angry self-actualizing empowered piglet breast-feeding feminine self. Now that I think about it, I'm afraid it's going to collect dust for another decade and a half. Great thread idea btw.

Just heard this on the radio and thought it might be of interest. Audio link: How Much Does It Cost To Make A Hit Song? A look at the process that the recording industry goes through "manufacturing" a new song. More info. (The comments are great.) " well, finally an explanation as to why this stuff sounds like SH!T " " "radio play has been minimal"?!?!?! clearly, you do not listen to hot 97. " " Boy, I sure hope she gets paid! She's obviously a starving artist that puts a lot of creativity into her craft. You know, like ... um ... showing up and singing. Maybe putting some warbling vibrato where it really didn't need to be... that takes a lot of talent. And make-up." Here's the song they "built." I lasted about 15 seconds, muted it and watched the Rhianna's hooters and played some Moody Blues.

Here it is on the Discover site: http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201106?pg=26#pg26