[wdmaudiodev] Re: USB Audio Class 2.0

  • From: Børge Strand-Bergesen <borge.strand@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:29:07 +0100

I'm sorry Tim, but this is like saying Canon & Co. should have stopped
adding megapixels once their cameras got 4 or so of them.

kHz is a simple number. Comparing the kHz of your audio system will be
done in the consumer crowds just like they compared the MHz of their
CPUs and the megapixels of their cameras. The more you have of that
simple metric, the better they will feel.

And at the moment, Microsoft is the audio equivalent of a 3 megapixels
camera or a Pentium 4 computer.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Marc Lindahl <marc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 4:56 PMEST, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Chris Barker wrote:
> I've been a lurker on this thread for a while. I'm not actively involved in
> the industry but I am a audiophile and been dealing with PC (e.g. Windows)
> audio for decades.
> If there is need  to further prove the audience size for improved high bit
> rate audio support built in Windows, one only has to contact the guys at LH
> Labs (http://lhlabs.com/) and their very successful Kickstarter and Indiegoo
> Geek DAC projects.
> It is really hard to talk about topics like this in an objective and
> business-oriented way, because the whole arena is filled with so much
> astrology and incense and pyramids.  Physiologically, 384kHz audio is just
> dumb, as is 192kHz and 96kHz.  Anything more than 48kHz is just wasted bits.
> Sure, a few people are willing to spend money for that kind of equipment --
> those are the same people keep telling themselves that tube amplifiers are
> better.  They are buying Macs because Macs are cooler.
> I'm just not sure that a company like Microsoft can ever have mindshare in
> that population.  Even if they released a USB Audio 2 driver stack tomorrow,
> I don't think it would be trusted.
> --
> Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> Wow, clearly not a pro audio guy.  While there is ongoing debate in the
> professional audio community and the audiophile community regarding 176.4KHz
> and up, there is little anymore that there is great utility for 96K and
> 88.2K in addition to generally superior sound quality to 44.1K/48K.
> The market shows there is a demand for high sample rates and bit depths,
> Microsoft should be interested in that.  It's not 'just a few people'.
> Windows continues to enjoy popularity among audio pros for running various
> DAW software, and Audiophiles as well.  The market is there.
> Regards,
> Marc Lindahl
> http://engineering.bowery.com

WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe:    mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
Unsubscribe:  mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
Moderator:    mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Other related posts: