Grateful Dead

Can anyone tell me why DVD-A is not the preferred format? One disc, one complete show, smaller space needed to store boxed sets, all you have to do is run your dvd player into a receiver and that's it.

Bush bad - Obama much much worse. Now keep your filthy unwelcome politics to yourself, we come here to escape the reality that a bunch of incompetent voters traded away our right to maintain our own health care system.

can't wait to get this box and listen to it in chronological order, choosing era-appropriate drugs for each show - lots of psychedelics for the 60s, maybe some grass and ludes for the early to mid-70s, followed by some blow for the late 70s stuff, graduating to crack for the 80s, and finishing up with ecstasy and other synthetics for the 90s. bring it on!

Ah well, that's the way I understood it anyway. If I'm wrong about something I don't mind finding out about it.

No, it makes you a 9.2857143 e-07'er! given that there's more than 7 billion people, most of whom won't get it.

You should really check out these two links. The first is a youtube video put by xiph audio engineers, the second is a long article that you should check out in its entirety when you have the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html Also, I should preface my remarks by pointing out that this has nothing to do with mp3 or any other lossy file format. It is referring to lossless, whether compressed lossless(like flac) or uncompressed lossless (like wav). mp3's are clearly inferior - the question being addressed is whether standard 16/44.1 is inferior to 24/96 or 24/192. If you think the answer is yes, you should really check out both links. Although within the video this is mentioned, it is not emphasized, even though I think it is the most important point. What he shows on the video is that, as long as only frequencies below 22,050hz are being sampled (band limited at 22,050hz), then an audio wave of any complexity sampled at 44,100 times per second yields a series of discrete samples where ONE AND ONLY ONE curve (the sound wave) passes through each point. You can draw a different curve through all the points, but it can proven that ANY deviation from the original would mathematically compel the original to include frequencies ABOVE 22,050hz. Since we know that we excluded all those frequencies, only the original (source) curve is correct. The job of the analog to digital converter is to recreate this original curve. Unless you are an infant or a bat, you don't, and will never, be able to hear or detect frequencies of 22,050hz or higher anyway. The video does a good job of explaining what 16-bits means. Most people don't know. The different - the ONLY difference between audio sampled at 16, 24, or even 1, bit(s) is the level of noise (exactly equivalent to tape hiss) that is produced by the digitizing process. In other words, it affects the dynamic range of softest to loudest sounds that can be encoded. 16-bits (especially dithered) has a wider dynamic range than exists on any of your music recordings. I have seen people wishing for higher than 16-bit files of recordings made prior to the early '80s. Well, reel-to-reel has a MAXIMUM dynamic range that is equivalent to about 13 bits. Casettes have a maximum of about 7, but were usually in the range of 4-6 bit equivalent in dynamic range. You can never get what was never in the recording to begin with. Even the most perfect reel-to-reel of, say, Dark Side Of The Moon, can NEVER be improved by adding more than 16-bits, because the ORIGINAL RECORDING never had more than 13-bits of dynamic range. Modern digital recordings, even though they are professionally created with 24 or even 32 bits, still don't utilize more than 16-bits of dynamic range. One key thing to keep in mind is that the audio situation is NOTHING like the video situation - using terms like high-def or high-res to compare what is happening with audio with what is happening with video is a complete misunderstanding - they shouldn't be using the same terminology and here is why. In video, high def gives more information to your eye. The more pixels, the higher the resolution, the better the image - the better the OUTPUT of the system sending information to your eyes. That is NOT true in audio, but it's a little complicated why. In hi-def AUDIO, there ARE more samples (creating larger files), HOWEVER, your EAR is never given any additional information because the digital to analog converter recreates the EXACT sound wave that was used to create it. In effect, 16/44.1 is LOSSLESS. This is only true if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest sound frequency being digitized. But, that's not a problem, since you CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING at above 20khz. So, the OUTPUT that the digital to analog converter creates, the SOUND WAVE that is created is EXACTLY THE SAME as if the converter was given 92khz sampled file. The only difference between a 44.1kz file and a 92khz file is the the 92khz file can properly encode all frequence in the range from 0 to 48khz, and the 44.1khz file can only properly (losslessly) encode frequencies from 0 to 22khz. Who cares? The range from 22khz to 48khz is INAUDIBLE TO YOU AND ALWAYS WILL BE - COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IN EVERY WAY UNDETECTABLE BY YOU. If you think otherwise, you should contact a university science department immediately as they may want look into using you as a secret weapon or somehow or other. In any case, check out both links. Or don't, because it is perfectly fine enjoying what you think you are hearing also (that's not sarcastic, seriously.)

We've all heard about various bands that were true originals and 'opened the door' for others to walk through...NYDolls, Pistols, GD and others. The Dead held the door open for decades and no one walked through. A couple stumbled through but fell on their faces. Nothing else like them to this date. All the other bands that claim to have been inspired or influenced are, really, just crap (for lack of a better word). My opinion, if you haven't guessed, is that it's all contrived quasi-hippie bullshit.

It's hard to generalize about mp3s. They are not created equal. I would challenge anyone to hear the difference between a well converted 320kbs mp3 and a CD quality FLAC. These listening tests have been done over and over and it appears that a vanishingly small number of people can tell the difference with any statistical significance. Of course, that assumes a playback system that can represent the resolution. In a car, iPod, boom box, etc., all bets are off. I listen to 320kbs mp3s (or AACs) most of the time through my Grace Design/McIntosh/Avalon system and it sounds amazing. Lower than 256kbs and it sounds like dog doo. Even 256kbs mp3s are a bit dodgy. As far as the analogy goes, it's not a good one. Nyquist proved that decades ago. You only need two samples per frequency interval to perfectly reproduce the waveform. Not adequately, but perfectly. Higher resolution buys you nothing and if you go up too high, you can end up with intermodulation distortion in the audio band. 60khz is about perfect, but of course, we have a jump from 48khz to 88.2. As an audio engineer, I'm usually doing 88.2 these days. But 44.1khz honestly sounds really good with the right converters. Of course, I would never condone reconstituted FLACs, WAVs, etc., from mp3s being passed along by traders as full resolution.

Damn right.

The best way I've heard it described is to think of a photo in the newspaper. It's all made up of dots (or used to be anyway). Looking at it from arm's length it looks pretty good. Look closer and closer and you can see the dots that make up the picture. With mp3, you can 'hear the dots' much more easily than you can with flac. There are many different types of files, some lossy and some not. Starting at the bottom and working upward, each has more information than the last. That's about it. There's just less information included which is why mp3s are so much smaller than flac. I don't get the mp3 thing, unless it's something that can't be procured any other way...and they're a huge liability for traders. I'd rather burn up GBs at a faster rate than get ANYTHING in mp3. They are the bane of all existence, although still not approaching the level of George Fucking Bush.