RE: Audio Processing

["Kaimbridge M. GoldChild" <kaimbridge@programmer.net>]

Peter Murray wrote,

> Forgive my inexperience, but why waste 2/3 of your capacity just
> to offer a diversity of processing levels? Why not just offer a
> flat feed, that can be processed as the receiver (whether
> re-broadcaster or end-user) desires?
>
> Am I missing something?

I'm thinking more in terms of like how regular TV stations can
offer SAP (secondary audio programming--i.e., "subcarriers") and
DTV supports more than one channel--though I openly admit all
knowledge and understanding of DTV is what I read in these
lists/boards and elsewhere.
Or, for that matter, with all of the wasted space on CD albums,
I can't see why record companies couldn't offer 2-3 different
levels of processing of whole albums on the same CD (e.g., compare
the "flat, raw" recording of "Brother Where Art Thou" with that of
the version aired on the Grammys:  Digital refinement could restore
the undesired modifications of compression/processing, while keeping
the desired "artifacts").

     ~Kaimbridge~

--
Note:  E-Mail address has changed to kaimbridge@programmer.net,
as Google's @my-deja.com service was terminated on 2001-DEC-12.