On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> >> UHJ is simple and convenient, because people can buy it as a regular stereo >> track like the rest of the music. No pop-up with a choice: stereo or >> surround version, no playlists where one has to make sure the stereo version >> ends up on the iPod, and the surround version is used for home playback. >> None of that. One file, one solution, stereo, portable, home, car, whatever. >> No confusion for consumers, distribution channel, radio capable, etc. THAT >> works. >> > > No, it didn't work. That's just a plain lie. Obviously I can listen to a UHJ encoded CD or radio transmission as regular stereo, and if I have the equipment/software, I can also decode it into surround. It works, I've heard it, I have the UHJ CDs that I can (and often have to) play back as stereo. > UHJ will (mostly) be heard as "plain stereo", So what? That's the entire point. Selling UHJ encoded material requires hardly a change in the distribution channel, and requires no change at all for the consumer, unless they want to explore the surround sound feature. The latter is something people can explore at their leisure, as time and budget and equipment allow. But there's never a choice to make about which track to buy, which track to sync, what information to strip out to reduce size. There are also no choices about which versions of a track to produce, which versions to bundle, etc. because there's always only one mix, and one product, it only can be listened to in different ways. This is the path that provides the least options, meaning the least confusion and the least overhead; and that's always the winning path in any business that's consumer oriented. This is NOT an engineering or technical product, nor is it a professional product, where people might like and want options and choices. > and then there < might > be a few issues. (Mathematically-logically, it is > impossible to press 3 channels into 2. You will have some artefacts if > presenting surround sound in just 2-channels.) The artefacts are not significant. They are certainly less of an issue than all the artefacts that arise from lossy compression, and people by and large don't care or notice either. > Surround reproduction requires more than 2 speakers, say: at least 4. (Even > decoded UHJ, so to speak.) And? Did I ever say anything different? > If speakers are "crappy", surround won't be enjoyable with any system. :-) Did I say anything different? The thing is FOA sounds just fine with 4 speakers, and 4 decent speakers are a lot more affordable than 6, 8, or more decent speakers. The way the world economy is going (stagnant wages combined with inflation in the "rich" countries, and rising wages in poor countries, which means global income averaging), people will in inflation adjusted terms have less disposable income for tech gadgetry in the "rich" countries, and may be barely get to the point where they can afford entry-level systems in the "poor" countries. That means stereo systems will already be considered expensive, and something that requires four speakers will start to push the pain envelope. Forget 6 or 8 speaker setups, these are a luxury for an upper crust of high-income or high-networth people, and they won't sustain a mass market. On 14 Apr 2012, at 16:58, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote: > Ronald C.F. Antony wrote: > >> >> So who cares about bandwidth and storage? But even if these other issues >> were moot, bandwidth and storage remain at a premium, because my iPad holds >> only 64GB, and the iPhone's music download over 3G or 4G has a rather hefty >> price tag. >> > > Yes, but your next iPad will hold 256GB (for example), and if Apple doesn't > want to offer this somebody else will do. That doesn't make the cost much lower. SSD prices, although they have come down quite a bit, are still prohibitively expensive for large capacities. A 480GB SSD still costs well over $1k, a 480GB disk drive you can get for $50. That's a factor of 20, and it's not going to go away that quickly. Besides, bandwidth is a separate issue: a lousy 2GB data allowance costs $30 or more in the US. In Austria, where mobile data is globally speaking dirt cheap, 1GB is about €1 when bought in bulk, but even so, transmitting large sound files would cost as much to transfer as the purchase price of a track would end up being in e.g. the iTunes store. So for mobile devices, bandwidth costs matter greatly. > But for mere interest: How do you listen to surround on your iPad? Cos this > question has to be asked, sorry for my ignorance. :-D Binaural decoding would be the way to go. Besides, the iPad ends up in the dock when at home, which is hooked up to the power amp. An iPad with amp is a complete entertainment system, for those who haven't noticed that fact. What is missing is software, and that's why convincing companies like Apple to get involved is of paramount importance. > You can listen to UHJ. But as stereo. See former posting. Yep, which is still better than having a 5.1 file on the iPad that isn't suitable at all for any sort of playback. Ronald _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
