Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

The more you speak on this subject Pettyofficer the more I wonder if
1 you are joking?
2 you are a lillte mad?

There is nothing to "design around". Things are always developing. It sounds like you should do a little research. I don't see how any OS is "dragging you down" unless you are using windows 98!

To quote you "They can only sabotage computer audio at every turn". What does that actually mean? Is that like a CD player sabotaging your ability to play a film on DVD?

Pettyofficer,

All Hifi systems suffer the issues you mention. This preamp with that power amp, that power amp with those speakers etc etc.

As with all decent systems you have to make some effort to get it to sing. This takes experience & knowledge. Just like setting up a TT, finding a decent phono stage & the correct loading for a cartridge.

Pettyofficer, I am a little shocked that you feel a computer cannot send a music file perfectly to a DAC. Its a tiny insignificant task in the scheme of things. Surely the DAC has been specifically designed to convert audio? A computer has been specifically designed to calculate & deal with data.

What are we taking here? Sending a file that's approx 750MB (if its a full CD) or possibly more if a high res file to a DAC. Come on. I doubt you could even find a computer that doesn't have at least 2GB ram today let alone unable to send that perfect data to another piece of hardware.I.e a DAC.

You don't seem to grasp that the "file" is totally designed for music & you can choose the type of file (I.e Wav/aiff/flac etc) & the quality of it. It is the file format used to record the music in the recording studio.

It is easy to point at MP3s. obviously these are not for an audiophile system. So forget the MP3 compression compromise in this context.

I feel I need to say for about the 5th time to you that you just have to choose & set up your system. Just like any other part of your Hifi.

If you choose a PC it means you need to turn that software off & install this playback software which will send to the DAC via USB or Firewire etc. For a Mac you run this software etc using FireWire or bolt or USB to your excellent & beautifully designed DAC.

Most of the S.Q issues will be further down the chain after that. The biggest issue will be the recording itself. It's irrelevant if it's 44.1 or 96 etc. if its a lame recording it will be at any resolution.

So switch on your computer & choose the track/s you want to play via an iPad/smart phone or on a qwerty keyboard. S.Q will be good. To get all audiophool follow the usual tweaks & tune tone to taste.

If this is beyond you get someone to help & use this forum for advice. I can give you a list if you like. If you follow it you will probably leave this subject alone & be listening to some of the finest audio you have heard.

Get over yourself. It's all already been designed. Designed to deal with far more taxing issues than streaming digital 2 channel playback. Its the 21st century! Not 1901. Find the right set up for you and Just use it. There are potentually far less compromises than any other "format" you describe.

Pettyofficer,

Are you suggesting that downloading a music file to your computer is being effected by your operating system?

Do you feel it is being corrupted somehow? I must admit I am struggling to see your point now.

Hi Pettyofficer,

Sorry if we keep crossing answers. I think there is a delay between our posts appearing.

I copied my response below to this thread because we are crossing a couple of threads now.

Any Hifi system will have variable results. Computer based or not. My understanding of your complaint is shifting slightly now over a couple of different threads.

I think your complaint still is about set up. But it's about which version of which software you can run on what operating system. If this is the issue, then I understand.

So with that in mind you fall into a couple of camps.

1 latest version of everything. So update regularly. This is easy although a pain in the butt sometimes.

2 get it all to a point where you are happy & do not update. Just enjoy.

I must admit with a PC I recommend the later point. Although keep Security updated.

The SQ differences are pretty slight once you have set up the main software issues although functionality is probably better.

Hope this helps.

Pettyofficer,

You need to buy a mac for your computer audio. Sounds like you need help to set a PC up. PCs can be a pain. ASIO is there because a computer is an open ended machine. You tell it what you need it to do & then in most cases it does it.

It also sounds like your Internet speeds could be slow. If it is slow to download why not download your audio overnight? No need to sit & wait. Personally I find it quicker than getting in the car & driving to a store.

Hfisher,

I quite bait. It makes for a good snack.

Hi PO,
for the first time so far I think I understand you.

Archiving historic tapes is one thing with DSD or even DXD. But no one is using it today to record with. I Know of pyramix as one of the only DXD workstations. Try finding a studio that uses it. Nearly all tracking these days is done via a DAW such as protools etc.

But why dont you understand that what ever recording process you use, it has to be stored, so it can be uploaded/downloaded? It's only a way to access the information. All you will need is the software to read it regardless of the size of the file and a vendor to get it from.

Petttyofficer,

You say you listened, but it is obvious from you're last answer you have not. You are just repeating some paranoid idea you have that computers will kill off high quality audio or other quality formats. Please show me the evidence.

No one is dumbing down, cheating or lying if you stick with the established retailers. Piracy is a problem, but I'm sure you can tell the difference.

No one is progressing backwards. You will find everything is available at 16/44.1 (CD quality). Now you will find some 24/44.1 and higher recordings. All the way up to 24/192. At a push you will find higher.

As time goes by there will be more. Give it time to appear. In the meantime you have the recording history upto today available for your listening pleasure. Not enough for you I guess?

Monopoly is an interesting word for you to use. People are using downloads because it's easy, and compatable with all modern equipment, and sounds as good as the orignal recording if kept at original sample rate. i.e. non data compressed.

For portable convenience some use data compression (MP3) to fit numerous albums on their phones/iPods etc. Still sounding way better than the Sony Walkman of the early 80s. But as we are talking about audiophile quality we won't count MP3s. Remember you could keep the original non compressed file in your library, & convert to MP3s to your portable device.

From a technical standpoint some recording masters used to create the glass master for CD manufacture are different to the masters for creating vinyl. This is not because of Microsoft or Apple. Its just the radio loudness war effecting things.

You see Petty, there is no standard anything. Besides you could probably find the masters used for creating the vinyl. After all they too were probably a wav or aiff file anyway...

Why not just get a server with it all built in Petty? Bypass all the computer issues.

There is the Weiss MAN202. I have not heard it, but know the DAC section it is based on which is very good. Control it all from an iPad. Sorted.

Pettyofficer,

So you do not have a server? You have a CD player that can only play red-book and possibly SACD at best. Is that correct?

Sometimes I feel we speak different languages. Am I correct in thinking that you would not even consider something like the Weiss MAN202?

I thought this would be your dream? No computer, just all the convienience of one with a damn good DAC with volume control all activated via an iPad/iPhone etc. You can play CDs as well as all the other files. Surely this has your name on it? Or is that killing off everything & not viable yet?

Poor Pettyofficer,

Change is the only guarantee. Nothing stands still. Doomed is the thing that does.

I can feel your pain. Market forces are cornering you. I'm sure you'll be able to find your other formats in the future. You could even burn (I mean record!) your own CDs.

But I and others have given you all the information you need to escape being like the doomed dinosaurs looking up at that meteor coming at them.

Just like them, you will see the dust will settle & leave smaller more efficient critters to go further than any giant lizard ever dreamed of.

You are just experiencing the convergence of medias & their technologies. It is, & will be amazing in everyway. You must have been unlucky so far.

But I have heard the finest quality from some of these devices with excellent interaction, control & freedom. You obviously have not. That is a shame. But not surprising.

Everything is moving very fast, which means you have to too, or be left behind with all your vinyl & magnets.

We are even seeing the end of the USA & europe as dominant global powers... Who would have thought that would happen quite so fast? Will you still be listening to vinyl when the Yen is the new global currency & oil a fuel of the past?

Petty everything moves on. Change is universal. Nothing stands still. You are seeing the dawn of medias all converging.

The equipment is better than its ever been, and I'm sure it will continue to refine & redefine. Whether other formats survive or not only time will tell. But if they do not, I doubt it will because of any of our opinions. It's a global market.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few! You can still burn (record!) your own CDs if you wish. I suspect the devices of the future will be so compact & multifunctional that software (records) that need their own separate hardware to just to do one thing (I.e TT/CD players/Reel to Reel/DATs etc) will be forgotten.

It will just mean that the software will be played on all devices with no need for all these hard formats. Don't worry it will be much better.

Petty, your premis continues to be wrong.

I have explained MP3. You can choose if you want higher rez. So get off that argument of low bandwidth. It's a red herring. If anything, CD is low bandwidth today.

You have more choice than ever. In fact you could even download music which never would have been put out by a record company. New artists with no A&R interference. Pure expression if you are lucky or interested.

What you don't seem to understand is the music is stored as a file which can be read by any entertainment device or computer. So you are free to play music in pretty much any environment. That is good. I don't see how it makes audio irrelevant? It makes it accessible. And if you want to get all audiophile you can.

Which bit do you not understand? Pardon the pun.

Petty,

Don't you understand that you can use your CDs in a computer? You can rip it at CD quality if you like. Or just play it. If ripped, it can even sound better than the original!

As many have said above NO ONE IS REPLACING other formats. But you are correcting in thinking sooner or later it probably will, as technology moves on it will. Market forces, plus an unnessassary extra manufacturing process to make CDs etc from the studio master file.(WAV or AIFF)

BUT (!) You can download anything you like at normal(CD) resolution. MP3s are available to as a convenient way for those who wish to store many tracks at lower quality. But that is your choice. You can choose CD quality or higher if you want. You can keep that original and convert to MP3s for the car or your phone/iPod.

Just remember the CDs you like & the vinyl you like we're probably mastered as files! Got it? The glass master to manufacture the CD is cut from the file(wav/aiff). Keep up.

Petty,
No you haven't been gripping about the lack of hi res. You have been gripping about losing formats that are likely to be left behind when in your opinion the replacement is not ready. & gripping how great every other format sounds in comparison, & how you were ripped off by SACDs, & how Microsoft & apple are killing off music & making it irrelevant.

But I challenged these notions by saying all your formats (hi res or not)were likely to be made from these files for at least the last 10-15 years & are compatible with everything while having the same master source quality.

There is no railway just open land to cross any way you prefer. Freedom. Play any file type anywhere with no need for bulky specialist hardware like TTs.

I have repeatedly explained that Downloadable file formats are (or can be) an exact copy of the studio master. And no matter what comes along you will always be able to play these files regardless of their resolution. They are standard. Everything plays them or can convert them.

All modern studios are 24/192 compatable now. So the high resolution formats you seem to be looking for will become more & more available.

But in the meantime there are plenty of recordings to be had. But don't be fooled. The recording is what is important. Not just the resolution.

Pettyofficer,
I think you need to assume that downloads will be at least the same as CD res. (if not MP3). If the vendor offers higher res for download then it will say the option 192/24 etc.

Where I live the high st music & film stores are gone due to the market moving to download etc. no myth. Gone. The record labels have already done the deals with iTunes & various online libraries. The conduit for marketing & online availability is done. Go look. It's all there. Anything you want.

Forget the hassle you are having with your pc for a moment. Meta data, ASIO etc forgotten. mac have that sorted, & Microsoft is not that far behind, but the apps to drive online libraries do it all.

Your argument is mute. iPods/iPads/smartphone/Bd & DvD players all are compatible these days. Choose bandwidth & press play or stream or download & enjoy.

Oh dear PO,

Double speak? Keeping up with this thread? Let's start again.

Double speak: surely we have done the conversation about format. You can listen to any "format" you wish. You will always have them. Computer audio can be any resolution you want. If sound quality is less important than the number of tracks you store, then you have compressed files. If sound quality is important to you, then you can use lossless or non compressed files. These files will be at least CD quality.

No one is forcing you to do anything. There is just a change in the way music is being used, which is much more flexible. If you want CDs you can order them. The question is why bother? They are made from a file anyway.

Keeping up with this thread: since it seems that this thread is either you saying the same thing, or everyone else saying the opposite, I don't feel it's too much of a challenge to keep up. But then again maybe I've been brain washed by various computer manufactures to see one side of the argument? I shall reboot & update myself and check. Please meditate on the fact you can have any format you wish. But most have adopted the next format along. That's all.

So if most have opted for downloads/files as opposed to a physical disk then it's likely they will be better served as they are in the majority & easier to serve. If you want to stay with old school formats it will mean it will be more of a cottage industry. But still available! You choose.

Pettyofficer,
No! The high res download is different to the SACD &DVDA problems. As I explained, you do not need Specialist/elitest/expensive equipment to play high res files. That is why SACD suffered.

The beauty now is everything can play these files. Also high res does not need any extra process to make it. The master usually is high res. so if anything, it's more work to dither down to CD quality or lower.

There is no risk, as whatever kit you buy will play all the above, and if not, the file could easily be converted to what you need.

You will always get CDs as a physical disk. There are so many already manufactured. You will just order them from storage places like amazon's warehouses. But just remember the polution they cause...

Is it a monopoly that Ford don't make a model T anymore? What replaced it was way better so the T became history. A mark to show how far we have come. Can't you see that?

Loving your tenacity Pettyofficer,

All recent DACs do the sample rates you mention & will continue to do so.

If you have a really old DAC that at best will do 44.1k, then you can dither down to that, while keeping the original file safe until you get a newer DAC. Even your phone will do most of these rates!

Forget the model T. You know what I'm getting at. Don't be a dinosaur. Good DACs are cheap, very good & will do all the rates you need. Better than the highly rated old DACs of the past. It all moved forward & the chip sets got cheaper.

To answer the rest of your 050112 post you may as well read my above posts as we have already been there.

I'm am sorry you don't seem to get the gist of it. You can't say I did try to help you. You have all the choice you could wish for. Possibly too much!

Understand the beauty of the file as a format, everything reads it these days, & always will. If you want to play CDs why not just burn your own from the file. All computers will do that.

Thank you Pettyofficer old friend. It was fun. I never posted so much. Now I must say goodbye. Embrace the future.

Off on this one again PO? Move on.

No one is replacing other formats.

We have just reached a point where more people have computers or computer based entertainment than the old methods of music playback. That's all. It's a natural progression.

PO I have no idea what you are talking about? You download at CD quality or whichever is the highest quality available. Surely you understand that?

Now if you want to take your music with you in the car or whatever, as you import your library or favourite play list to another limited memory device I.e a phone or iPad etc. you can do the transfer at a lower bandwidth than your main library to save space while leaving your proper Hifi library as is.(full bandwidth non compressed)

Therefore you can fit more music on your portable device to enjoy when out. This is the flexibility. That format could be mp3 as it doesn't need to be full bandwidth for the car or phone or whatever(unless you want to) & the file will be read by anything. But your main library for your system WILL be at full bandwidth and waiting for you when you get home. Is this difficult to understand?

No one is talking about lowering down sound quality. You have a choice.

You just copy for flexibility on the move and compress if you wish. Sewage? What are you on about?

Pristine audio is what I'm on about with the possibility to take it anywhere. 21st century lifestyle.

PO,
What you don't seem to be understanding is these high Rez formats you keep mentioning are all made from a file (I.e WAV or AIFF). That file IS the file you are downloading. It IS the master from the recording studio.

So get it into your head that there is no format issue anymore. Nearly everything will read a WAV or AIFF these days.

No need for your long descriptions of a world gone mad. Now read the above one more time and please take it in.

Now you hopefully have understood the above. So we can carry on to a slightly more complex aspect... Some sites will data compress these files losslessly using FLAC or something similar for quicker/easier downloads. These FLACs etc are not to be mistaken for MP3 data compression which is lossy and for our purposes the work of the devil. So the quality is not effected as they are lossless. Operative word being "lossless"

Are we good now? All clear. No need to pull out your 8track or cassette or tell anymore conspiracy stories.

Hi Tpreaves,
I'm a sucker for punishment.

PO,

In answer to "not a word in your response to music sampling rate of these files".

There seems to be little point in going into detail with you as you never seem to grasp the basics. In good faith I shall try again...

Most studio hardware is capable of 24 bit 192k. Some can go higher but not many. At some point in the production process this sample rate gets dithered down usually for your lovely "old" formats you seem so fond of. I.e stereo 44.1k 16 bit for redbook CD.

It would make little difference to the mastering guys or the artist to just upload the file at the native sample rate (the rate it was recorded at).

As I have mentioned about 100 times to you, now that you are downloading the files and playing from HD, as opposed to buying CDs or SACDs etc, the limit is down to the files original native sample rate.

There is little or no reason for high resolution files to cost much more, other than the time taken to store and download the master. Its only an export spec option out of the recording software. This is where you can choose the final outputted sample rate for the making of CDs etc. So the mastering engineer or whomever could leave it native if anyone wanted. It would take no extra process or extra time.

Please remember well recorded crap or high rez crap is still crap. It's the music that matters! Don't get too concerned about the resolution. Think of it as a bonus.

I think we should continue this thread until you grasp the original point of it.

In case you have forgotten "should sound quality of computer audio be improved?" My answer is it is improved already and will continue to improve. Now we are not slaves to robbers who want $20k for a disk reader which can only read 44.1k/16 or if we are lucky DSD. A computer treated correctly can do all that and more as long as you have a decent DAC. Fine tune software for peanuts and spend the money saved on music. Not on a guy who clads an old Philips transport in a billet of aluminium.

I could continue this thread for years. How about you PO? I hope I am being clear enough to not have to explain for years. Anymore questions?

PO,

I must protest! Distortions indeed.

Just so you know I spend most of my time in various recording studios. Some high and mighty and some not so high and mighty. I think you may underestimate some of the members here and what they do for a living.

The number of studios using higher than 192k is very very small. For a start most studios use protools for tracking. Look at their hardware specs.(192k)

So it costs lots more to record hi Rez does it? Have you seen the price of HDs recently?

Don't you understand that whatever SACD or whichever format you like, the music for it, if recent, was probably recorded in protools. If not then the other usual suspects like Steinberg Nuendo/cubase or Digital preformer or Logic etc.

Take a look at their specs too. They will only handle 192k. So where are all those recordings done at much higher rates? Trust me they are far and few between.

You may find some DSD recorders, but show me a normal piece of music recorded that way as a multitrack, not just as a transfer to stereo for mastering.

You are very mistaken. Please see the logic. The file you download is closer to the original studio master than ever before.

Come on PO, come back with something better.
But I must apologise for my rudeness in the earlier post. There was no need for it.

PO,

Regarding DSD and DXD in recording studios as a format the jury is still out. I think the ability to manipulate that amount of data has many technical problems today. Many manufactures do not support it (hense my above post) and have no immediate intention to support it. So to use DXD is difficult impractical and expensive for most studios. Obviously that will change if it becomes more widely used.

The guys that are using it, as I mentioned, are remastering/mastering guys. So the multitrack and stereo master are recorded using the usual suspects. Its only the end stages of the production process where DXD or DSD may be used. Live recordings could be different be even these are recorded via multitrack mainly so unlikely to be what I would call "real" DXD. I.e used through out the whole process rather than just at the end.

There are those who say 192k is fine and those who say DXD is the first recording format to COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR sonically.

But as no one can really deal with it, what seems to be happening is engineers are bouncing between analogue and digital to make it work. I.e playing the output of the DXD capable DAC up the mixing desk manipulating in analogue then rerecording those manipulations back to digital!

It's a bit of a mess and while there are some amazing sounding pro AD-DA DSD DXD capable processors, how they integrate with standard studio equipment is a hassle for now.

I hear Linx are about to release a pro soundcard which is compatible and "cheap". But I have not seen it.

One day if it can be used all the way through the process we will have the finest recordings in history. But in a climate where there is no money to be made from music, it is unlikely many will retool at vast expense on the pro side to adopt it fully. (mastering aside)

PO,

I think what you need to understand is we are on the sharp edge of this technology. 32bit 64 bit whatever.

How do you expect to get true DXD when no one is fully recording with it?

As you have seen many of these DSD and DXD recordings are only mastered or remastered using this sample rate. Which is great. One less bunch of crap in the signal path.

This is not about computer manufactures. This is not about download. This is not even about a spinning disks of any variety. This is about the pro community adopting fully this technology. This can only happen gradually.

The pro community are very interested in making high quality products but unfortunately music has become cheap. So the music producers are already struggling with lack of investment. Just like many other industries in these times. They have great equipment already, and yes there is the possibly of the last word in quality, but it means starting all over again for studios to fully adopt it.

So how do you expect to continue? One way would be to buy a DAC which can up sample to frequencies that make brick wall filters unnessassary.

This is not about you and your computer. As mentioned begore you are fine. You just need the correct software to decode whatever comes along.

In the meantime pretty much everything is recorded at much higher than CD quality. Most of it making a nonsense of the anologue vs digital debate.

Film is pushing the boundaries with real 3D and very high sampling rates for music and effects. But I fear the film industry could go the same way as the music industry as the expense is so high and profit low for the majority.

But none of this is going to change your attitude. You have some kind of bee in your bonnet. You have available some remarkable music and you are able to control it in ways you could only dream about 10 years ago.

Sound quality has got better every year and you are still complaining...The ball is rolling.

I do understand your point (finally) but you will never really know what you are listening to. So trust your ears. Music first. Recording process & "format" second.

Find music you love or moves you and stop trying to be clever. It would be like me saying I only listen to music which has been soley recorded using Neve mixing desks, lexicon reverbs and Fairchild compressors. It's a bit daft.

Hi Mapman,

I love jack Russell's. Great little dogs with huge personality and attitude.

His ears I bet would be pretty good for the upper frequencies. Do you think he worries about multichannel downloads and the demise of other playback formats?

I bet he won't let go of that stick either ;-)

PO,

hfisher3380 is only saying disks, whatever the sample rate, would be unnessassary once the download is available. The download is the same file used to make the disk. You just run it from your HD rather than an optical drive.

What's complicated? The very same people who offered you the disk will offer you the download.

PO,

There are download sites that allow you to hear before you buy, including iTunes itself. (not sure about the res though).

Can you watch a film and decide if you would rather buy the blue ray or DVD version first? No.

These points are mute. Again I find myself repeating what I said before regarding formats and competition. The file is the format.

So it will be down to the recording studio/record company/producers/artists to decide on the level of quality of the file.

It is they who will find the funds to use facilities that can record fully in a new "format" like DXD or whether they prefer to stay working with 24/192 etc.

It is not down to you! Can I decide if I'd like the latest porn film to be in real 3d? No I cannot. Can I decide if the next Star Wars movie is released in Omnimax or Imax? No I cannot. Does it matter? Probably not.

Do you see my point? The only competition is in the pro market now. As consumers you can play any format you wish. Your computer can, with the correct software, decode any of them.

I wouldn't be so concerned. Nothing stands still. The studio guys are dying to play with the next toy especially if it's better. It would seem DXD is the finest recording medium yet. But PCM at high samples rates isn't to be sniffed at either! What is best is as consumers we are not stuck with cassette, minidisk, vinyl, CDs etc. Those half way formats are now defunct and unnessassary should you choose. I'll just have the master thanks and play it any where.

PO,

I don't see your logic. Are you assuming that the artist wants their music to sound bad? They want you to hear them sound mediocre? They want to go out of business?

The point is recording quality is higher than ever. There is a possibility of it going to the final frontier with the latest non PCM digital systems. Sure.

So how do you not get better SQ? (engineering/mastering choices aside)

How are you not getting value? You don't even have to drive to the shop.

Hypocracy? I didn't say sound quality doesn't matter. I am trying to let you see that the quality is already better than ever, and what we are talking about are subtle differences. Differences in sample rates you will hardly ever know, as the recording is the recording. Those choices were made by the record producer. It's all about the recording. Not just the sample rate.

You will never know what the same guys would have sounded like recorded via a different system. You just have what they recorded. And now without extra processes.

I dont really understand your profit argument? I haven't noticed records getting more expensive. I see a new way that records are sold. More direct than ever.

I don't understand your quip at computer manufacturing profit? Seems you were happy giving cash to a guy selling a CD player.

PO,
as I said in my last post to condense the surround mix to stereo is no big deal really. They just fold down the rears change the panningn a little. Depending on the recording, one could pose more of a problem than another, but if it doesn't sound distant/too reverby/echoy then they have done a good job.

Don't worry PO, the future will be fine. The technology is here, and it is backwards compatible. One just has to be a little savy and keep up to date. Ask any teenage if you get confused.

Happy listening. Now I'm off to the Olympics.

P.O,

Come to a recording studio and let me give you a lesson in sample rates. It's clear you have no experience.

Once you start getting into 24/192 the rest in SQ is a bonus. It's not just about the sample rate once you get this high. Your understanding or possibly experience seems to be the fossil here.

What about questions like which mic & preamp? Which mixing desk? Which take? This all adds up to a decent recording. Don't you understand? You are worrying about such fine detail at this point. I won't watch star wars because he didn't use that other lense on that camera!

We get into a whole load of technical issues which is beyond you and I once we ask the question of even higher sample rates on top of these. Brick wall filters or not. Phase, ringing and implementation etc.

I can say this because the most experienced in the business cannot agree on which is best. But I can promise you what we have is better than what went before. The question is how much better?

PO,

I will make this clear. Maybe this is complex.

Once you get to 24/192k sample rates, any higher sampling rates become less important than othe issues for recording studios. At that point (way above 44.1k. i.e 192k) technical requirements get tricky. PO is this clear to you?

This is why some speak of PCM while others talk of DSD and DXD. The technical requirements of the hardware in studios starts to become difficult. For instance there are very few multitrack DAWs that can handle DXD. Most studio kit is 24/192 compatible and under only. Are we clear on that too PO?

Obviously a 16/44.1 recording will NOT sound as NATURAL as much HIGHER sample rates. At least double and upwards of 44.1 and depending on the RECORDING quality of course there will be a nice gain.

Now i will muddy the water. Your clever joke about staying at 44.1 is interesting. (if you are interested) Many top guys used to stay at a single sample rate because at the time the dithering algorithms were not good. Mastering guys felt dithering caused more problems than staying 44.1 all the way through the process.(44.1 due to CDs) But that was in the 1990s.

PO, Hfisher3380 has made it real clear for you if my English is confusing for you.

PO,

Wow. Where do I start? Personally I am shocked that you don't get the idea that:-

1. No matter what sample rates become available they will be downloadable to you and all negating the need for alsorts of dead end mediums.

2. Nothing, not even I (the puppet master i believe you named me) can stop progression. If higher sample rates become available that is good. I cannot wait.

3. I don't wish to rob anyone of the chance of having better. In fact it was I that was trying to help you see what is available, and assure you that your computer is a key to any future format. As whatever that format is, it will be data files to be read by software. This is good. You won't need many different machines costing lots of money to play back music. You computer will be your "transport" for any format.

4. Cattle...the only thing I can associate with cattle is the smell that emanates in your confused mutterings.

5. luckily I'm interested in cars and their history so I know vaguely who Ralph Nader is. And here you are correct as I am not him. The question is who are you?

PO,

Timlub has made the point beautifully. This is why I don't understand your problem.

Today you still don't know which recording is the best. You still have all sorts of remasters etc on various disk types. Do you buy them all to see which one you prefer?

You are downloading the same material. You have to do the same research you would do with SACD etc. Obviously we are assuming you are using legitimate downloads from reputable vendors.

PO I think you spent too much time on the quarterdeck with rum rations!

No one is denying you any format. But what I am saying is each format has a master which is a computer file (probably a WAV file)which they make disk format from. I.e CD/SACD/Blue Ray/DVDA etc. So why bother with the disk medium? why not just take the master file instead?

Don't you see? It's not a case of limiting your choice. You have the same music at the same sample rates available on all your preferred formats. It's the same thing. Understand? This IS the point! The file makes your preferred format.

This is why at some point the physical disk becomes unnessassary. You have the file that made it any way!

Again I repeat myself. I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. Sample rates do make a difference. But(!) once you get to 192k and above other issues step in. And the difference at really high sample rates (way above CD quality) is a bonus, not the reason to buy it. The recording quality is far more important.

If you don't believe me regarding really high sample rates we can do an experiment. I could send you a short recording of the same thing recorded at different very high sample rates and see how much different they sound between lets say 24/96 and upwards to 24/192. Something real simple like an acoustic guitar miked up with a very nice mic and mic preamp straight into a AD DA interface.

Unfortunately I cannot record easily above 192k and I doubt you will be able to playback a file higher without technical problems yourself. Hopefully then you will understand.

I can't believe I am about to give PO some ammunition, but I have to tell it as it is. Deep breath...

PO, your post to Timlub 07-20-12 raises a few points (sorry everyone else!)

If you downloaded the identical file the mastering guy used. I.e the raw recorded file, then yes you could remaster on your laptop yourself. Now whether you have the ears, talent, skill, decent monitoring, and the right software to do a good job is another question. Some of the software is very intuitive and extremely powerful.

Only if you had a dithered down or bad low res copy would you immediately struggle with the quality. Crap in crap out for sure. You could not do it with a low res mp3 to a high standard. But if you were good you could make it sound better than the mp3! There is some amazing software out there to repair and manipulate sound.

As you go on in that post to Timlub though you do start to lose the plot. Or at least I lost the will to live. You are struggling with some dull windows issues which with a small amount of effort will go away. About a million posts ago I tried to help with that. So don't let that color your judgement. You not being able to set up your own computer is no reason to put down all technology. If my tracking was out on my TT would I blame vinyl for being crap?

Am I missing something here? This is like the Monty python argument clinic sketch. " Did you come here for the 1minute argument or the 5 minute argument?"

" that's not an argument, you are just contradicting me...No I'm not"

PO, get some treatment.

PO you keep bring up this disk. As has been mentioned, whatever you already own you could back up and play at native sample rates. but no one is forcing you to do anything. Your disks will be around for a while.

As for your multitrack surround sound disks I would have to check. I know some software (maybe QuickTime pro?) can read this. If not there will be something. Admittedly a slight pain in the ass. But could be dealt with. Let's face it you can't have many more than 10 of these disks. And you could always keep what you use to play it now!

Now nearly all your problems are solved.

Now I think you (PO) keep focusing on the fact that I said once you get to a point with high res sample rates it's starts to become less important due to other factors. i.e above 192 there become issues. Reread above posts. I can't keep repeating myself. Im nit talking about returning to 44.1k! I feel like I'm trying to explain to my mother how to use her new TV.

PO, you sir are plain wrong. Unfortunately on top of this not ready to listen. Continue the way you are.

Do you really believe a site that prides itself on amazing quality and attention to detail, like let's say like Pristine Classical (32 bit mastered) that they would rather offer you the mp3 to download or a dithered down crap version?

What makes me laugh, is you go on about these recordings that have massive sample rates, but forget every single one of them was mastered on a computer! How did they manage if computer audio is so bad?

As I told you the file is the file. Anyone one selling it legitimately will explain what the file is and how it originated. Natural sound, DXD etc etc.

PO,

You show your lack of understanding every time you post. Since you don't seem to read my posts I won't bother to correct you.

Concern over opposing formats? Haha. I worry about it every second of the day. Read the above posts. You show your ignorance.

Where do you think your high res comes from? More ignorance here.

As for your multichannel understanding haha! All the stereo version is is the same multitrack with the panning adjusted or consolidated. A lot of the stuff in the rears is reverb anyway depending on the recording. I suppose you think they have a surround microphone? No. It's a selection of mics which are panned to create the illusion of placement. Or a reverb unit which places the stereo in a surround setting... Oh and what resolution do you think that lexicon or Bricasti reverb unit is?

PO,
the lack of availability of some recordings I guess is down to a lack of interest. The very reason SACD and the others failed to take off. It's a real shame. But if you know where to look you will find them.

Regarding knowing which release is which? I do understand if you are downloading illegally that this could be a problem. It is this behaviour which threatens your beloved disks. Not us.

If legitimate download sites are the vendors, they do tend to have the details of the recording. I have stumbled across some very anal sites mainly for classical music.

I have some Sony classical recordings which were cleaned up, and mastered from the original 1960s tapes. They go into great detail about what they are and the technology used to bring it to life.

I have an audio buddy (record collector) who has reference books and a rather frightening knowledge of these things. So I guess if you are interested you do some research. Like any other hobby. Read the right magazines.

Your love for surround sound disks is touching, but leads me to believe you should be saving up for a good HT set up and forget 2 ch sound. You would be happier as you could buy more disks.

A nice receiver with a blue ray player and HDMI cable and you will be happy. Those chip sets are 32bit too. 192k audio... The glass ceiling resolution. Oh Sony what have you done? Lol

Pettyofficer,

You have had numerous people giving you good advice and information. You have disregarded all of it. You obviously know better than the whole world. Back up your music to CDR.

"Back up hard drives are just another life preserver..." That is the point. Cannon fodder. If one dies you replace with another.

For gods sake your solar flare argument is so daft. If this happens you will have no power anyway. Let alone any ways to buy music. No phone no banking system etc. And when power is restored it is probable that other sensitive parts of the circuits in all your equipment will be destroyed/effected. We will all be returned to caveman status. Your CDs or whatever format will not help you. You will have to whistle those tunes like the rest of us.

Like Lazarus this thread now rises...

Sunandmusic, no matter how much you spent on a VHS recorder, a blue ray player would be much better. The ability to transfer & decode data is best left to the computer.

This with all things considered (see the many above posts) is where CD transports vs correctly set up HD&DAC is as a source. Things just moved on. Just make sure the ripping of the original data is done correctly.

Pettyofficer,

zzzzzzz. Get a grip and stop smoking whatever it is that makes you crazy!

For gods sake learn to write in paragraphs. If you are worried about the loss of CDs I'm concerned about the loss of the use of written English.

Multichannel downloads hahaha. DXD? We have done this conversation.

Whatever you actually want as your "format" when that sun activity kicks off you will have no power anyway. So you may as well give up.

Just when life was about to get dull here is Petty. I needed more practice in typing.

Well we survived the Mayan 5,125 year cycle. I wonder if Petty will continue his trip as long? I for one would not be surprised.

Tape indeed Pettyofficer! The only tape we need is one which can be used to tie your hands to stop you posting such nonsense.

I look forward to your buzz with magnet. My house is entombed in lead many feet below ground. Like batman. Please come. The bass is deep and crisp here so I doubt I would even hear you above the system. So make many passes. A man like you is unlikely to have modern device like a phone, so please send a pigeon advising me of your arrival in advance.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Oh Petty, how I enjoy you crazy rants. Solar flares aside (in which obviously you would have no power let a lone audio!) all s well.

Before getting you into digital HD streaming, I hope I can encourage you into the use of paragraphs and punctuation.

Hurray this thread still lives!

Volcati, the studio equipment today is way more capable than anything available to Joe Jackson in his day. The mastering process is blamed for many terrible things, but as in anything it's how it's done. Unfortunately they tend to aim at sounding good on small speakers. I.e car/radio etc.