Why not have all the audio stored at 128khz? It would be the best you could get, even though it would be impossible to tell the difference from 96khz, which is hardly different from 44.1khz...

People want "the best" because they get sucked into marketing, not because they actually know the details. Ages ago, GPU's had insane amounts of memory for the time. However, this was done not because it increased performance, but for marketing since other bottlenecks prevented it from being used.

Now this may seem to be an invalid comparison, but it's actually the same thing. In reality, only a handful of people have soundsystems where you would actually be able to hear the effects of this improved sound, and even then most people still wouldn't be able to discern the difference(aka, popularity of MP3).

The fact is, this is done for marketing - nothing more. 7.1 PCM audio makes a nice sticker on the box, and its a feature that most people don't know jack shit about. Thus, the quest for the "best" gets people to buy something, even if it means nothing to them.

Now, this mentality of the "best" thing possible seems to be a hallmark of the PS3's design and a mantra of its games. However, I think the benefits of it are debateable - especially from a sales standpoint. Oh, and I kinda set you up for making a comparison between the MP3 and Wii, lol.

lol,

put Hs on a 200 gb Blueray and............throw it away!

BlueRay is just specified up to 50 GB everything above are just "techdemos".

Even if they would release 200 gb BD, PS3 won't support more than 2 layers, im pretty sure about it.

lol,

so you're still stickin to CD and not mp3 ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

edit: cause my original post just sucked, but too late ;) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compression is necessary and convenient.

For example:
- you digicam: Most don't keep your raws but the compressed jpgs or tiffs
- your ipod: Your whole CD collection on the go

Lossy compressions reduces quality but it may be worth it

p.s.:
How come the blue ray video still needs compression ?
Cause 50 gigs are by far not enuff for uncompressed movies!

But i'm more sensitive to compression artifacts in videos as to minor sound gliches, so what a waste ;)

I stick with records and tube amps as they give the best and warmest sounds that CDs pale in comparison too. MP3 is crappy digitized sound that bit rates can improve dramatacilly on but they still sound flat.

 However to answer the question about compression yes it lowers the processor usage in terms of decoding but it also eats up a significant portion of bandwidth to the CPU. There are plenty of lossless compression techniques that sound or look just as good.

 When you start talking about video, textures, models, sound etc you can easily surpass the emory bandwidth of your system however many compression techniques can be handled with predetermined instruction sets that zip right through the CPU.

 Not all compression is lossless which gives it a bad name. MPEG for instance uses what is called a predictive(P frames) and Bi-directional(B frames) frames which makes predictive(or predictive and draws macros from the next frame in blocks of nXn pixels) changes to the original I frame(Like a JPEG[already lossy Discrete Cosine Transformation blocks]). However we use it all the time for broadcast transmissions, movies, games web browsing and such because the compression is still good(you just don't want to edit with it like you would HuffYUV and wavelet compressions) because it woudl really screw it up.

 However 30 MBps vs 1.18 GBps(720P uncompressed BW without any sound) is a significant difference in bandwidth that would allow for other things for the CPU to access instead of just video

 errrr my father got a Hi-Fi system with high quality component selected with ascilloscope testing and with DDD CDs it sounds way better than his records and tubs amp he had before... of course that stuff cost like crazy but digital media can do better than old stuff now.... and the warmth of vinyle it's BS (i like it too) but you can't say the sound is not clearer on a CD with a good prod behind that's plain BS... especially when it's classical music... a vinyl simply ruins it and even more with time... I still like my old pink floyd vinyls but new recordings with good prod from recent orchestras or band are better now...

"ROFL. 96kbps... acceptable... You just lost all your credit."

Settle down K-wad.

Well I hate to write a system wars post for the ten millionth time, but to me this just shows Blu Ray is not needed this gen.

I mean if any game would use Blu Ray, I would think it would be HS, because of all the expensive cutscenes. Never mind the rest of the game, which features rich gfx and lavish enviroments.

But I'm sure it'll be a single layer, like all PS3 games to date, so you're looking at 25GB, and with file overhead more like 22-23GB, max.

I'm assuming it'll be more like a 18 GB game.

Take away 10 of that for audio, which could probably be compressed down to like 1GB with little qaulity loss, and it's like a 7-8GB game. So one of the PS3's most epic productions could be done on DVD.

Preach on. Exactly the point. Blue-Ray is not necessary. It was Sonys trojan horse to win the high definition DVD format war. Thats why I havent purchased a PS3 yet. Waiting till it is $399.99 to buy it. I refuse to pay for Sony's Blue-Ray agenda. Fight your format wars on your own time and own budget SONY!!!!!

I would like to know the amount of people that actually care about this, the amount of people that actually would even notice. I agree that since it's there they should use it, but it's seriously a negligable advantage. I'm sure Microsoft is sitting there now and saying they wished they would have released 360 at $700 so that they could have the best sound quality. This is the problem with the PS3, people don't want all the crap it throws at you. In the end most people only notice a negligable difference if any difference at all between PS3 and 360. You have to have the GAMES, that's what people want.

The warmth sound comes from tubes and tubes like anything else have a wide cariety of products to choose from.  It costs a lot of money but set yourself up with a McIntosh amp listen to a well cared for record and play a CD right after that. It is the nature of CD's to distort sound by flattening it. Your system approximates the intergral of the wave form allowing for a better sound but it will still not match the quality of a record or even a DAT. For one ever 44,000ths of a sec the sound is quashed into one thing which has an effect of muddling it. Records sound better and smoother for everything including Classical and even House music. Ask a really good DJ to use CD's with top of the line equipment or use records almost all will choose records and there si a reason for that.

 I am not saying digital foramts are crap. CDs sound OK Super Audio CD's and DVD audio discs sound way better than CDs and are actually pretty good. MP3s are serviceable and very convienant. If you really have all that equipment I suggest you invest in a really really good record player and buy a freshly printed or well cared for record and listen.

 I also will say that most people will not be able to the difference between records or CDs. A lot of people think that MP3s sound better than CDs. In all honesty ony A/V nerds really care.