[BC] AudioVault, Now Cascading Algorithms

[Steve]

As usual Dana one gets beat up because some don't understand where one is 
coming from. (I'm not coming at you) Let me repeat this for all to clearly 
see. Yes....WAV or any lossless format is the best way to go. I was simply 
stating the average listener can't tell the difference. We have pretty high 
brow listeners to WorldSpace on our classical channel and many, who choose 
to run us into their huge systems and scopes say they don't hear any 
artifacts. It amazes our engineers but we take the compliments as they come. 
Now, if there is a musical form where you are going to hear those, that's 
the one. We have terabytes of storage  for all the various formats and, yes, 
we use WAV files. Some of our works run 90 minutes in length. Need I tell 
you dats a lotta bytes. My original discussion was about Audio Vault in some 
cases being overkill (smaller software/hardware packages) and then it 
drifted to loosey formats and listener perception. Nothing more or less. I 
don't think I have to repeat myself because I'm sure you saw some of my 
analogies about going from Multi-Track to the Stereo/Mono Mixdowns (all 
tape) to a 45rpm record when that was the medium. I believe the argument 
holds water in that we move down from on high most all of the time. Oh, and 
I totally agree with you about the cost of hard drive space allowing us to 
use lossless formats.

Steve


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dana Puopolo" <dpuopolo at usa.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] AudioVault, Now Cascading Algorithms


Well, with 300 gigabyte serial ATA drives seling for under 100 bucks, why
would you want or need to perceptual code. Besides, there's also lossless
systems like FLAC, which reduce space by 50% on average.

-D