Not really, Rich. In our mixes, we employ our own encoding tech that
will decode surround in all known formats. Check any of our current
20 CDs, for example.
Bernie Krause
>I understood that sacd was out of the question for a private
>recordist. I thought we were restricted to dolby tech. for the
>little guy?
>
>Rich Peet
>
>--- In "Greg Weddig" <>
>wrote:
>> I have a short response to that, DVD-Audio format or SACD.
>> Multichannel formats that can reproduce high resolution multichannel
>> sound, with or without lossless compression.
>> The encoding software is rather expensive and the hardware is
>slightly
>> esoteric at the moment but with more DVD players supporting
>> multiformat discs, I think this will change and prices will drop.
>>
>> --greg
>>
>>
>> --- In "Rich Peet" <>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, ya, the big guy is severly low-passed in mp3. But this
>bird is
>> > like that. Check out the side by side of the wave vs the mp3
>that I
>> > mixed within one wave file.
>> >
>> > 350 kb download at:
>> > http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/GHO.wav
>> >
>> > My feelings on Surround should have been based as a question.
>> > This stuff is so mixed with sales hype that to figure out how to
>work
>> > with it is really hard.
>> >
>> > I got into trouble reading at:
>> >
>http://www.dolby.com/professional/Support/tech.overview.html#DolbyDigi
>> > tal
>> >
>> > It appears that you can not have 4 channels of 10khz range birds
>> > singing at the same time and cover them with full bit depth. That
>was
>> > the sparrow comment. The thunder comment is probably workable
>with
>> > hours of post. When a signal uses both the areas above and below
>the
>> > lfe channel the sums and sides appear to be very hard to work
>with.
>> > Maybe it can be done with a lot of work. It appears that the
>rear
>> > surround channels were put there for sound reinforcement and not
>to
>> > be used as full distinct channels.
>> >
>> > I will continue to educate myself and work in full 4 channel but
>> > geeze Dan do you have a magic decoder ring that can tell us if
>this
>> > tech will work for us if we want full four channel with high bit
>> > depth?
>> >
>> > Rich Peet
>> >
>> > --- In Dan Dugan <>
>wrote:
>> > > Rich Peet, you wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Now with GHOW's you can get by with a tiny mp3 file because of
>> > those
>> > > >nice low notes.
>> > > >
>> > > ><20 kb download
>> > > >http://home.comcast.net/~richpeet/GHO1.mp3
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, but it sounds low-passed...
>> > >
>> > > >But if my reading is right you can not even put a sparrow or
>> > thunder
>> > > >on the surround channels of dolby 5.1. Looks like home
>theator
>> > will
>> > > >not be our future format.
>> > >
>> > > Please explain.
>> > >
>> > > -Dan Dugan
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Wild Sanctuary, Inc.
P. O. Box 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677 tel
707-996-0280 fax
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|