Petty, regarding your fine example of MLP - I'm referring to you saying you have a high res surround disk of this and you can't find a high res download "due to limited selection of high res downloads". As if MLP is easier to find and has a better selection?
Furthermore, it's also a poor example because anything in DVDa format can be ripped to your hard drive using easily-installed freeware (DVD Audio Extractor). I have burned all 25 or so of my DVDa to my hard drive and continue to enjoy them on my computer / DAC system. If I had a surround system I could even do that. Again, computer audio is not really a "new format" just a different way of handling the files without an optical disk and transport. It is highly backwards-compatible and doesn't require that adopters burn all their CDs - and even DVDa's. |
"You wish to exclusively replace High Res. Disks with High Res. Downloads i.e. "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Your exclusionary Theory severely limits the High Res. Music
Selection available to me."
Huh? This has been the crux of your argument all along (at least I think it has - it's been awful difficult to follow at times) but not once have I, or anyone else, said that we "wish to exclusively replace all high res. disks with hit res. downloads". Not once. Again, nonsense like this makes you lose your credibility. Most of us don't like being misquoted and having words put in our mouth. The only one here taking pop-shots at anyone or any format is you - and most of your beefs continue to be hypocritical since your beloved high res optical discs in even shorter supply.
If you're looking for someone to blame for the failures of past formats you are looking in the completely wrong place. Many people here (including myself) were adopters of these formats. Many of us have made a conscious decision to adopt computer audio and high res downloads. You can choose whatever format you want, buddy. |
Strange response-Hfisher3380. I complain of losing ability
to purchase High Res. on Disk (MLP, SACD, Blue-Ray Audio,
DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HDCD, possible DXD, 32 Bit
Remastered on CD) while the High Res. Download Versions of my favorite Releases aren't available yet. This is the
result of your suggestion that "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Any New Releases
on these High Res. Disks goes right out the window. This
leaves me with only 16/44.1 Downloaded Version of my
favorite Music. This is a step down from any High Res.
Disk.
The point is that I have found more than a few of my
favorite Artists on these High Res. Disks. Take another
look at that long list of High Res. Disk Formats above.
This includes many Disks that are just beginning to be
released in Remastered 32 Bit on CD by Elusive Disks.
High Res. Download Selection is getting better, I have
been checking it out. I don't see the same Artists, nor
do I see anything in 32 Bit. Nor do I see anything even referencing DXD.
My point is that I wish to combine the High Res.
Selection between High Res. Disks, AND High Res. Downloads.
This will give me a larger High Res. Music Selection to choose from. You wish to exclusively replace High Res. Disks with High Res. Downloads i.e. "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". Your exclusionary Theory severely limits the High Res. Music
Selection available to me. It will do the same for all other Consumers as well. A Higher Res. Selection (Disks+
Downloads) helps me in choosing those that sound better.
A single source severely limits that ability.
That will remain a problem-Chadeffect. My severely limited ability to gain access to many sources of High
Res. when exclusively limited to Download Format only.
I anticipate that most releases on High Res. Disks (MLP,
SACD, DVD-Audio, Blue-Ray Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HDCD,
possible DXD, 32 Bit Remastered on CD) will never see the
light of day as 24/96-24/192 Downloads. I don't own
"Everything" on all of these High Res. Disk Formats. Everything will disappear according to your single Format
Theory. So will my Music Selection. That remains a serious problem for me!
I have the same problem of having to repeat myself
so many times (Have you seen how long this Threads is).
I can't draw you a picture across a Thread. You guys are
smarter than this, I know that you can add. I certainly know that you can subtract. Your proposal is to subtract High Res. Disks from the High Res. mix. You subtract anything you have less left over, YES-NO? Less left over
means less High Res. left over for me to select from. It
is not complicated, it is not rocket science. You just need to be willing to look beyond the boundaries of your
Computer Screen. YOU CAN DO THIS! I am not arguing for
arguments sake. I happen to be interested in protecting
the Music Selections/Releases that I like to listen to.
Most others feel the same way. When replacing Formats most
take 5-10 years, for the very reason as to protect everyones Music Selection. Nobody gets left out in the cold. I don't see any concern, nor attempt to do the same
with Download Format replacement. Why do I sense panick
here in the rush to implement Downloading Format? What is it that you are not telling us? Again -should I be just as
nervous over Downloading as you? Other Formats shouldn't even be a concern- so why are they such a concern? I can
be just as concerned about exclusionary Downloading Format.
If you are nervous about it, you are certainly making me
nervous about it as well- WHY??? |
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. |
Strange example, Petty. You complain of listening to the MLP, SACD etc...and there being no high res download? As if the availability of MLP, SACD, Blu-Ray audio are any better?
Yes, we'd all like a wider selection of high res recordings - but at least to my eyes, high res downloads, while still limited in selection, is the only current digital high res format with any momentum and showing any sign of picking up. There are new high res downloads in all musical categories coming out every week. So much so that I have abandoned SACD altogether (lack of selection, especially for anything other than classical). Nobody is trying to kill any format here...just choosing whichever works best for us.
Fine to complain about the lack of selection in high res downloads...but when you compare to SACD, MLP 24/192 surround or Blu-Ray audio your complaints become a bit laughable.
And...once again (in case you didn't hear me asking the first time)...who the heck is saying the sampling rate makes no difference? You lose credibility when you continually misquote us. |
Chadeffect- here is the reason for the Disk. Say you have
a Surround Sound Mix of Dianna Krall-"The Look Of Love".
Say you have one copy processed in Advanced Resolution
Surround Sound 24/96 Multi-channel Meridian Loss-less
packing.
Say you have another copy available as a two Channel WAV Download Music File (16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192). Wait!
The 24/96, 24/192 Versions are not available yet due to
limited selection of High Resolution Downloads. You say
it doesn't matter, toss the MLP Disk production, Download the 16/44.1, and wait until 24/96-24/192 versions become
available as Downloads. This maybe a hypothetical proposition, but it cuts across many High Resolution Disks
vs "not available for prime time yet" High Res. Download
of the same Release. How is a Two Channel 16/44.1 WAV
Download File a step up in sound quality from a High Res.
Multi-Channel MLP Disk? This is your "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". I say "Hold
on just a cotton picking minute here". Not until you have
adequate High Res. Download Release content to match the
quality of existing MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24,
K2 HD CD, Blue-Ray Audio Disks. 16/44.1 WAV Music Downloads only thing available to replace specific Releases on these Disk Formats? Atleast until we have to
wait for 24/96-24/192 Download Releases of our favorite Music to become available in High Res. again- for the
second time around? How long are we supposed to wait for our Music- 2 years, 10 years, 20 years? You can't say the
Recording Quality is separate from the Sampling
Rate, when the Sampling Rate of all New Music Digitally
Recorded has a direct corellation with sound quality.
You want us to go back to the "16/44.1" Digitally Recorded
Music of the 1980's, and how it was Digitally Recorded? This is your "Sampling Rate makes no difference", as you try to sell Higher Sampling Rate High Res. Downloads on the
Internet? Kind of absurd, don't you think? I am going to need a whole Barrel of Rum to swallow this "Whale of a Fish
Story! If you are Digitally Recording at a higher Sampling
Rate- this captures more of the acoustical event. Higher
Sampling Rate IS the Recording Quality, they are not separate entities. Again, no guarantees of High Sound
Quality; but, a little harder to do without.
I don't preach to you to not buy the 24/96-24/192
Music File Downloads off of HDTracks. I don't try to limit
selection with 16/44.1 Download Market with High Res. Selection waiting in the wings. Don't try to preach the elimination of my High Resolution, and I will listen to it. I will also listen to yours, but not stepping down to 16/44.1. Been there, done that for thirty years- don't tell me it doesn't make any difference! Naaahhh- what else have you got? |
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? |
You are suggesting that Joe the Plummer [sic] can do better Remastering in his garage, on his laptop? Is PO confusing file conversion with mastering? That could be part of the problem. |
I think timlub hit the nail on the head - Petty give the impression of arguing for the sake of arguing. What's that that someone said on an earlier page about reminding him of an ex-wife...? |
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. |
Petty, just tell us what formats that you'd like to buy. I don't want to limit you any longer, please tell us, all the formats that you would like to buy, please list them individually, also, if they aren't available to the consumer market, please lend your bank account to bring all the formats that you want to market, after all, you are the engineer. After all, its our fault that you are limited to 1 format, YOU CANNOT have any other format... wait, its Chads fault isn't? So after all its Chads fault that you are limited to 1 format...
My gosh man you talk in circles. It is obvious, you argue for the sake of arguing, please take the last word and relieve us of the pain... Wait a few were enjoying this, gluttens for punishment. Give us your favorite spaghetti recipe, it might be something productive that all of us could get from you. |
Petty, I don't think any reasonable person wants to deny you anything. Who here has any interest in killing off any format? Most of us pick our format(s) and get on with it. Personally, I've given up on SACD. I currently use vinyl, CD (ripped to my hard drive) and high resolution downloads. I am of the opinion that optical discs of all types will likely be replaced by downloads because the files are the same. This holds for audio and video. When you really get down to it, computer audio and CD are basically the SAME format (ie using the same files). Computer audio is COMPLETELY backwards compatible but has way more flexibility and the potential for higher resolution.
Does this mean that I (or anyone here) wants optical discs to disappear? Absolutely not! We're not trying to rob you of anything. Go ahead, enjoy music in whatever format you choose! |
Chadeffect. Do you deny me the option of buying them all
to see which one I prefer? Do you severely limit my choices
to a single Format Source? You are going in the exact extreme opposite direction limiting me to a single choice.
Let me ask you this: Do you buy the 24/192, 24/96,
16/44.1, 24/48, 24/88.2...etc- of the same release off
of HDTracks? Do you buy them all to see which one you prefer? The difference here is that I would not presume to
limit you to be able to select only one of these. Neither
would I presume to limit anyone else to the same single
selection. Limiting anyone to a single choice of the above
Downloads, isn't necessary. By the same token it isn't
necessary to limit anyone to the single choice of Downloading Format. What you fail to explain to me is the
Market necessity of eliminating all other Formats other than Downloading. Not if it's desirable, not if it
is inevitable; but, why is it necessary? It would be
about as necessary as limiting you to a single Sampling Rate for each HDTrack Downloaded Music File. After all,
"The Sampling Rate makes no difference"- right? It is the
presumption that it makes no difference to you. It is also
the presumption that it would make no difference to anyone else. I would not presume to tell you what to buy- Now give
me some of that back! You won't budge no matter what!
Henceforth the Hypocracy of your double Standard. |
Timlub. My Downloading whatever Music File then burning onto whatever Disk. How can this compare to a Mastering
Studio Remastering in DXD, then burning to Blue-Ray Audio,
Multi-Channel High Rez. MLP, SACD,....etc? It would be like
comparing your own home made Cassette Recording to a Master Analog Recording. Can you Remaster these Computer
Downloaded Files prior to burning? Again it is garbage in,
burning in Blue-Ray Audio doesn't nullify garbage out.
Professional Recording Studios have access to DXD, Remastering Software, and lets not forget the Master Analog Recording. Even with this the Pro's still occasionally screw up a Remastering. You are suggesting
that Joe the Plummer can do better Remastering in his
garage, on his laptop? All that he needs is the Downloaded
File, no matter what File Type that may be? Low Res. MP3
Downloaded Music File, Joe can convert/Remaster into a
High Res. 24/192 Music File of perfection? Garbage in-
The Mona Lisa out? Everyone should be capable of producing
a Remaster (From a Downloaded File) that sounds as good,
if not better, than that produced by Professional Studios? We elevate ourselves to Studio Quality Master
Recording Professionals, without any College Education,
or decades of experience in this profession? I am sure that if I study hard enough, I could learn how to perform
brain surgery on myself. Just let me practice on you first
to get the hang of it- deal? At some point here, where do
I actually get back to enjoying Music instead of supplanting it with learning how it is made. I pay someone
else to make Music so that I can spend sometime actually
listening, and enjoying it. You are turning an obssession
over a Hobby into a Lifetime Career Study. I would like to
get back to listening instead of 100% Studying as to how
Music is made. By your standard I should be able to build/ design my own Turntable, SACD-MLP-CD Player, Music Server,
Media Player. Spend all of my time doing that, who needs
to listen to stinking Music? Who would have the time? This
all sounds like a self-defeating process that peels you away from spending more time actually enjoying listening to
Music. Imagine your first CD player requiring self assembly
from the lowest basic set of parts. You have never seen a
CD Player before, it could take you years to learn how to assemble. Instructions are sketchy, ambiguous, and incomplete. I would buy this, why? Why would I buy the Computer Audio Version of this? It is not that I couldn't
learn- I could. It just becomes extremely inefficient in
accomplishing my task of listening to my Music Y-E-S-T-E-R-D-A-Y! I think that there is a shorter route between point
A and B. Rumor has it that a straight line is that shorter
route. Anyone mind if I try that to see if it is indeed
shorter instead of having to pass through Wasapi, Kernel
Streaming, and all manner of Software Processing? Sorry,
I don't know what got into me. Sacriledge! Inserting things
definitely makes for a shorter route. Light bulb definitely
makes that clear.
O-kay, I will muddle through it. I like to have options including Computer Audio/ Downloading- sure! I still demand Music while I muddle. That can only mean an
Optical Disk since I am still muddling. THIS is asking too
much in a proposed single Downloading Format Market? This
sounds like Darth Vader closing all of the exits again.
Not a very comforting thought. Do you mind keeping atleast
one exit slightly open for me O' Dark Lord of the Sith?
Well, you can't blame me for asking! No more pre-designed
Music Servers whose Software is obsolete two days ago. Much
prefer J.R. River Media Center Version 14 through 10,000,000. Just wake me up in ten years! Imagine the money
that I could save just jumping on J.R. Version 10,000,000.
T-H-R-I-F-T-Y!!! |
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. |
Well Pettyofficer, just don't understand you, now you turn around and speak reasonable again... what it comes down to with downloads is this... what ever the file type, MPEG4, Flac, DSD, WAV...whatever it is, it can be converted.. You can burn a file to disc... if the file integrity is good, you'll have a great CD. I suppose that you could burn it to BD-R, then use your Blu Ray player also... Computer Audio offers more flexibility than ANYTHING else, its here to stay and you will see it grow in many ways, including selection of music....
Appreciate your tenacity, man you do stay with it. |
Hmm....
Well, for older guys like us that recall 78s, then the advent of lps and stereo, then progress these days in terms of real sound quality improvements might not seem such a big deal.
I will say that my digital in my rig today is as much better than the digital sound off my first CD player I purchased back in 85 or so (a Magnavox) as MErcury Living Presence was compared to an Okeh 78 from years prior. I do not know how much better it will or can get, but I do not see a decline overall to date. |
Is it heartless on my part that I enjoy watching Petty's outbursts get more and more ludicrous as his feeble arguments go up in flames? Kinda like watching people self-destruct on those old reality shows.
So let me get this straight...first it's "lower-than-CD MP3" that is the problem...and now it's Chad imposing a 24/192 bottleneck on downloads?
You got to be kidding!!!
Thanks Petty - I needed a chuckle! |
Fair enough! I do get grumpy when I sense someone desiring to minimize my options in Audio Formats. Still trying to
figure out how one can Download a Blue-Ray Audio release that is not available yet as 24/192 High Rez. Download.
There within resides the dilema of limited selection in
High Rez. material- in a single Download Format Universe.
Even if the same release was available in both Formats,
would one always be of better sound quality in one Format
as opposed to the other? Would it be a mixed result with
different releases in each Format? I will buy one release
in Blue-Ray, because I discover it sounds better than it's
24/192 Downloaded counterpart. I will buy another release in 24/192 Downloaded File, because I discover it sounds better than it's Blue-Ray Audio counterpart. Ditto the same
comparisons via SACD, MLP, DVD-Audio, XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HD
CD.
Of course it is the Music that matters; but, it is
usually the Mastering (Or Remastering) process that sometimes gets screwed up. This cuts across all Formats,
including High Rez. Downloads. You will end up with some
CD versions of a release that will sound better than their
High Rez. counterpart- simply because someone screwed up the Remastering process. These anomalies can apply to all
Formats. It might not happen often; but, it happens often
enough that someone will lose any High Rez. Potential of
their favorite release- their favorite Music. High Rez.
can sound better (In all Formats including Downloading);
but, no guarantee.
My issue is the loss to the consumer to descriminate
what sounds good to him in a single Format Market. You are
going to end up with some 24/192 Download Releases sounding wonderful, others not so much. Why is it so
rediculous to have a back-up Format of your favorite Music
when the Downloaded version doesn't come out as expected?
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree. When it
comes to "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads", where is the room for reasonable
disagreement as to how this may negatively affect the
sound quality of SOME Music Releases? What alternatives will exist for THOSE instances? Are we being forced to buy
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" of High Rez. Downloads,
because that is the only High Rez. Format that is left?
What if it becomes the only source of the favorite Releases of our particular Music? How does limited selection in High Rez. Downloads affect our access to our
favorite releases. Can you always say that the 16/44.1
Downloaded version will always sound better than the Blue-
Ray Audio Version? The Multi-Channel MLP Version? The SACD
Version? The XRCD, XRCD24, K2 HD CD, versions? If 16/44.1
Download Version of my favorite Music Release is the only
one available, you will be cutting me out of any High Res.
access to these Music Releases on Disk. This will happen in the elimination of other High Res. Formats. Music may Matter most; but, I have heard some of these other High Rez. Formats on Disk. The Sound Quality on these Disks- DOES MATTER to me! Yes, sometimes they do sound better than the 16/44.1 Downloaded version when High Rez. Download selection remains very limited. This is not always true. Please allow me the ability to fill in the blanks. Allow me the ability to discriminately listen, and select best sounding across many Formats. This is no different than when you discriminately listen, and select when you Download. My hope is that a larger selection would give me more access to the best sounding versions of my favorite Music. I haven't found many in High Rez. Downloads yet. Let me listen to my favorite Music till they do become available. If that makes no sense, I don't know what to tell you.
As far as I am concerned: I am only a 50 year old Man.
I have been Retired from the U.S. Navy for about 10 years.
Had 20 years of Naval Service, served as a "Pettyofficer".
Pick a number to get your free pop shot! |
Good question. Who exactly is my grumpy old grandfather figure PettyOfficer? Not Ernst Stavro Blofeldor Dr. Evil I hope! A good guy I hope. Mr. Bond perhaps? Maybe the Bond girls are fewer and far between these days accounting for the grumpiness. |
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,
Sorry for that.
I truly enjoy your diatribes. You're like the cranky old grandfather that I never had. |
"And to think, all this time I thought it was George Bush's fault !!!!!"
Well, I do blame him (the younger) for a lot but I doubt he even knew what a bit is.
Maybe Petty could have educated him. |
And to think, all this time I thought it was George Bush's fault !!!!! |
FINALLY I GET IT, ITS ALL CHADS FAULT...
Earlier, it was the tyrant manufactures, then all of us at least now we know its Chad... and of course now instead of not being forced to listen to mp3 or being able able to get high res, it is now formats that don't exist to the consumer market and the consumer market will never see them because of Chad... |
PO, Hfisher3380 has made it real clear for you if my English is confusing for you. |
Chadeffect- Of course most Studio Kit is 24/192 compatible
and under only. My point is that YOU want to keep it that
way for a damn long time with "Soon all New Music will only
be available as Music Downloads". We are limited to 24/192
glass ceiling with Downloading. You don't want to explore
any other possibilities with DXD, Blue-Ray Audio, MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio, XRCD24, K2 HD CD, and Vinyl. The real crime is that you want to rob us of the opportunity of listening for ourselves to any possible improvement with these other Formats- DXD or not! A 24/192 Download is the
bottleneck that you want to force everyone into- a possible
32 Bit Mastered Disk, or Remaster be damned! You want to deny us the ability to compare any possible future Format
by imposing a 24/192 Single Downloading Format Filter. I
prefer being able to compare the Sound Quality of competing
Formats on my own. Am I supposed to dumb down to your level, and just take your word for it that "24/192 Music
File Downloads is as good as it gets- live with it"? There
is no longer any room for improvement, and you are going to make damn sure of that by saddling everyone with 24/192
Downloading. Sorry, too convenient- especially when both you, and I know that there is something out there that
sounds better. Maybe it is still in development; but, it
STILL Sounds better than 24/192 Downloads. You know it!
You just don't want anyone else to be able to listen for
themselves. We are supposed to surrender our ears to your dictum of "Soon all New Music will only be available as
Music Downloads. Only thing available for everyone to be forced to listen to. Any Future Formats be damned; because, you will not be allowed to listen to them for yourself". Talk about being treated as a head on a stick. This will not pass. People will eventually realize that they are being treated as Cattle- THAT IS INEVITABLE! Therefore (once again) a single Format solution does absolutely nothing to benefit the Consumer- in Sound Quality/ In Thrift/ In Convenience/ in Cost/ or in any other way. Are you even a Consumer? I have my doubts. You are certainly not Ralph Nader. Who are you? What are you?
Why are you trying to do this to us? What did we ever do to you besides leave you alone to listen to whatever Format
you wanted. Don't treat us any different- like Cattle!
Will you ever learn that you can't force anything you want
down everyones throat. It is an exercise in futility, much
like this Thread. You are not a Puppet Master, and we are not your Puppets. You are definitely NOT up to playing God!
Stick to your day job. |
Um - who said sampling rate doesn't matter? I believe that what was actually said is that the recording quality and technique matters more - which is absolutely true in my experience. While higher resolution recordings do sound better in general, crappy recordings / masterings sound crappy no matter what the resolution. In fact they may sound even worse with better fidelity - like the latest Rush album - which sounds like absolute crap in 24/96 on my stereo but decent via MP3 through my iPod or car stereo.
So...what we are saying is that the resolution matters, but the recording and mastering quality matters more.
Petty...when having a conversation, it helps if you actually listen.
|
I ran this by my Jack and he tilted his head in an approving manner.
O---O
\___/
Woof! |
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. |
Simple question Folks. If you don't need 24/192 Multi-
Channel on MLP Disk, why in the world would you pay the
same for a 2 Channel 24/192 Download? Why Digitally
Record at 24/192 if the Sampling Rate makes no difference?
Digitally Record at 16/44.1 for Downloaded Music Files.
Keep everything at 16/44.1 since it makes no difference.
Who are you kidding, you guys ARE buying the High Rez.
Download Stuff expecting what- 16/44.1 performance? I
don't think so! If this is the case, I suggest putting
your dog in charge. He would probably make more sense.
It is really simple. Garbage in- Garbage out also applies
to Sampling Rate, as it applies to everything else in
the Audio Chain. You guys are arguing otherwise- we are
back to Reversing Entropy/ Flat Earth debate ad Nauseum.
I am ending this lunacy now! It is starting to make me
Nauscious. Argue with yourself in a mirror- I am out of here! Arguing with someone who can't add, I'm better off arguing with a drunk! Recreating your own Math because
2 + 2 = 4 is too inconvenient for you? Well, it has just got to go! Right? So do I. If you can't figure out why it
doesn't add up- don't come to me. After all, you know
better! |
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 ;-) |
Chad,
May I send my Jack Russell Terrier for some lessons?
You will probably have more success educating him. He is very smart AND a good listener. :-) |
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? |
Petty, Petty, Petty...your latest diatribe is just more twisted logic. We are no more be blamed for the failures of SACD/DVDa than we are for the failure of 8-track or Beta. If enough people don't buy into a format, the format fails, pure and simple. That, my friend, is how a "Market" works.
Just like you, we are free to choose whatever format we want - and many of us are choosing computer audio. Why you have chosen to make this personal I haven't the faintest clue.
Why did vinyl outlive cassette - and why might it eventually outlive redbook CD? Why did laser disc never really make it? Why is there no reel-to-reel at HMV? How come I can never find any digital audio cassettes? What about 3D Blu-Ray - who's to blame for that slow market introduction?
There is no conspiracy here - the market decides these things. This is how the world works. You're wasting an awful lot of energy on this. No need to work yourself up into a tizzy! |
Can we all just agree that Petty needs to develop his own stinkin format... he's the engineer... (drives trains)
I just don't understand why he continually beats down us dummy's that aren't smart enough to do this computer stuff properly.... Petty, Please, Please, Please fix it and save us all. |
Thanks again Hfisher3380, not too many worries about the initial pitfalls for me though - I'm currently far too broke to make all my mistakes first with cash anyway (my situation normal). And I firmly believe that time is on my side and there's no real rush to come to an effective understanding of it all right away, I can bide my time and learn - which for me is really nothing new when it comes to audio anyway. And as for the work, well, I'm a longtime, diehard tweaker already. But, I do appreciate your response all the same. I've always had the awareness that this would be the next thing...yeah, I'm sure discs will go away eventually, but I'm not panicking in the meantime and I want to thank all of you for giving me a lot to look at as I go along. |
Chadeffect-
"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?
"I am trying to let you see that quality is already
better than ever, and what we are talking about are subtle
differences. Differences in Sampling Rates that you will
hardly ever know, as the recording is the recording. Those
choices were made by the record producer. It is all about
the recording. Not just about the Sampling Rate".
I try to add these two statements together, and they
appear to null each other out. Can I hear subtle differences that would be an indication that the Artist wants their Music to sound bad? Can I not hear these subtle
differences, therefore the Artist doesn't care what the
Music Sounds like. You are arguing out of both sides of
your mouth. You can't have it both ways.
Keep it simple. Would the Artist prefer listening to
DXD or a 24/192 Download of his own Music? I guess he
wouldn't have much choice if "Soon all New Music will only
be available as Music Downloads". Do we have one Format for
the Artist, and one Format for the Consumer? If this is the
case WE get the short end of the stick with 24/192 Computer
Downloads of the Artists Music. What if the Artist prefers
Analog, Vinyl, MLP, SACD, DVD-Audio (24/96, 24/192), Blue-
Ray Audio. What if the Artist judges these as better
sounding on Disk via DXD, than on a 24/192 Download. What
are you going to do, shoot the Artist to keep it quiet?
Tell the Artist that he can only listen to a 24/192
Computer File of his own Music when DXD offers 3-4 times
more resolution? MLP even offers 24/192 in four to six
channels. I don't see alot of four to six channels of 24/192 Releases available on HD-Tracks! Two Channel 24/192
High Rez. Downloading is a step down- Recording Quality
higher than ever? Do you even know what it is that you are trying to sell us? If you don't even know, feel free to fume all you want to because some of us won't buy it!
There is the Profit! Paying the same for an MLP Multi-
Channel 24/96, 24/192 Disk than a 2-Channel 24/192 Download. I guess if we were dummed down we would buy that for a dollar. Some of us can actually add. Here is a
News Flash, you can also RECORD at a higher sampling rate.
Based on your opinion this makes no difference in the
Recording? No difference in New Music, nor New Recordings?
It is all about the Recording. Not just about the sampling rate? -REALLY??? How you record directly affects the
recording- you think? I thought that I was a Fossil! |
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. |
If PO's argument is based on the general dummying down of America's mass market consumers, then I think he has a valid argument.
Luckily, that has been going on forever, and where there is enough market and interest (like hopefully in good sound) there is still quality to be found.
I neither expect that market to keep pace with the mass market nor for it to decrease in size itself moving forward. It will likely continue to grow in terms of revenue but become an increasingly small niche market.
It will be what it will be. Neither corporate conspiracy theories nor faith in open markets will change anything. |
Chadeffect- "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 latest Star Wars movie is released in
Omnimax, or Imax? No, I cannot. Does it matter? probably
not".
Alright, lets go with that. Based on this- who decides
"It is the Music that matters"? You would leave it to
Recording Studio/ Record Company/ Producers/ and Artists, to the exclusion of the Consumer himself. One little
problem: as a Consumer you are in competition with atleast
the Record Company/ Producers over Sound Quality. It is the
nature of any Market (Especially the Audio Market) that
the Consumer must struggle, and fight with the Manufacturer
over Quality. I.E.- "Let the buyer beware"! Are you in
business (As a Consumer) for yourself to get as much Sound
Quality Bang-for-the-Buck? I am! Are you instead in
business (As a Consumer) for the Manufacturer to benefit
from you getting less Bang-for-the Buck? Multiple Formats-
mutiple sources of High Sound Quality. Single Format- single source of High Sound Quality. Who benefits, who
loses, and who benefits at someone elses expense? I don't
know about you, but I am coming up short on multiple sources of High Sound Quality with a single Format solution. Does it matter? I am in business for myself as a
Consumer. My business is higher selection of higher Audio
Sound Quality. The more sources of this (Formats), the
more my business profits. Fewer sources, and someone else
profits off of my business. You fill in the blank of who
you believe that might be. We still have options unless you
decide to give those options up! When you give those options up, you don't get them back if you discover that
"Things don't work out as you planned". You giving up
options (Multiple Formats) also means that I have to give up these same options. There is no vacuum here in the Audio
Market. Everything we do directly affects someone else in
the Market. Does it matter? PROBABLY SO!!! Tell me how many
times you have already heard me say this? You offer nothing
to contradict this. Your arguement is simply one of
convenience for yourself. My arguement is one to benefit the Consumer in the Audio Market- of which I happen to be one of them. You can't say "It is the Music that matters",
and "Does it matter? Probably not" in the same breath. THAT
is HYPOCRACY 101! What Barometer do you use to measure Sound Quality with, the increased Profit Margin of the stock for your favorite Computer Audio Manufacturer? I guess those ears no longer serve any purpose, just donate
them to science. Just don't try to put that on the rest of
us. Your single Format solution, as a benefit to the
Consumer, just "DOES NOT COMPUTE"! Recheck your Math, or
do it through personal attacks on me. We need no stinking
Math, right? |
In my opinion - a little bit of know-how and setup is involved but this is as good as digital audio gets:
take any recent, decently-powered desktop PC with quiet, cool-running chassis fans.
Install Windows 7. Install EAC Exact Audio Copy, use that to rip CDs to FLAC files with a log proving 100% bit-match to the digital on the CD. Install Foobar2000 or any other audio-player front end which supports WASAPI for bit-perfect audio playback. Ensure all sound effects, EQ, replaygain, etc is disabled. Set volume in player to 0dB.
If you are feeling especially careful, set the Foobar2000 -> preferences -> advanced -> playback -> full file buffering up to (Kb) value to a number greater than the size of any of your audio files. This will ensure that playback is entirely from RAM and if something happens during playback that makes excessive use of your HDD, it will have no impact audible or measurable, on the playback of your music.
Play these 100% bit-perfect FLAC tracks via WASAPI (rather than directsound).
Use USB or toslink or spdif digital to get the signal from your PC to the DAC of your choice, and it's good old analog from there.
This is absolute perfect source, true *exactly* to whatever arrangement of 1s and 0s were on the CD you ripped from. and I don't believe you can improve from this until the day comes that recording/mastering studios start putting out higher than 192KHz, 24-bit audio and we need better computer hardware to process it and output it unmolested to a DAC. |
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. |
Ivan - computer audio ain't for everyone - it most definitely is not plug and play if you want to do it right - at least in my opinion. In this area I would admit that Pettyofficer does have a point - there is some effort required to reap the benefits and there can be some frustration along the way. However, don't let his disorganized and paranoid meanderings make you think that any of this is insurmountable, futile or bound to go the way of SACD/DVDa.
In life, sometimes the best things require effort. This would include my two current favourite music formats - vinyl and computer audio. The effort just makes it all that much sweeter when you're sitting in your listening chair reaping the benefits of your work. |
Oh give me a break Petty - just when I think you're verging on a breakthrough and making a bit of sense you start talking in circles again. Obviously a better master will lead to better sound quality - no matter what the format. You have to look no further than the latest Rush album - which I downloaded in 24/96 but is well nigh unlistenable on my system due to ridiculous compression. Output resolution does not always correlate with ultimate sound quality.
But you are being ignorant and hypocritical if you have the nerve to criticize - well I'm not sure who you're criticizing, sometimes it appears to be us - for downsampling the original recording to lower resolution downloadable files. At least with computer audio there is always a possibility that they'll make available a higher resolution master - and they are starting to with increasing frequency. With CD you'll always be limited to a 16/44 downsample - HDCD, XRCD, XRCD2...whatever, there is no way of getting better than 16/44. You're criticism here is nothing more than ignorant hypocrisy - and I would hope that deep down you know it.
In the end, I frankly don't really care what you think, as I've said before. Sometimes I just wish you would actually pay attention and stop double-talking out of your you-know-what. |
Chadeffect, I do trust my ears; however, don't I need the
ability to listen to it first? Will I ever be able to
truly listen for myself to a 24/196 Download compared to
a Remaster utilizing DXD (Disk, Downsampled, or not)? This will not happen in a Universe of "Soon all New Music will only be available as Downloads". I lose the ability to listen, compare, and judge the sound quality myself in a
proposed single Format Download Universe. I lose the ability to listen, or sample with my own ears. With the
lack of my ability to listen and judge for myself (In this
proposed Universe), who determines for me what level of
sound quality I am allowed to listen to. High Res.
Computer Audio Downloads become the new glass ceiling in
Sound Quality. In a Single Format Download World, how
would you even be allowed to discover anything else that
might possibly sound better? I want to be able to listen
for myself, not have my sound quality dictated to me
through limited 24/192 Downloading ceiling. Even the Music
Selection in 24/192 Downloading is another glass ceiling.
You limit your options for better sounding Formats in
limiting (or eliminating) other Formats. Only way to break
this glass ceiling is to concider that there might be
something out there that might still sound better than even
High Res. Downloads. Listen, and judge for yourself. Don't
allow someone else to dictate to you that "24/192 High Res.
Downloads is as good as it gets" through "Soon all New Music will only be available as Downloads". You certainly
wouldn't limit yourself to only one Format in "Soon all
New Music will only be available on Cassette". Would you
exclude yourself from all other Formats that came after the Cassette? Would you sandbag their possible development? If this had been done, even for the sake of
Manufacturers Profit (No competing Formats), the Manufacturers would certainly be shooting themselves in
their profitable foot! That is why I say Single Format is
horrible for Consumer, Manufacturer, and the Audio Market.
It becomes an irreversable LOSE, LOSE, LOSE situation.
There won't be any second chances! The Consumer loses his
authority, and his ability to compare quality in a single
Format Monopoly. You don't get it back afterwards, therefore don't paint yourself into that corner to begin with. You need the ability to listen first to be able to
judge "Music First" in comparing Formats. Only then can you determine if Recording Process/ Format was helpful, or
a hinderance. "Listen First" before "Music First" if you
want to do a fair comparison based on Sound Quality.
Otherwise, what exactly ARE you doing besides burning
money? Having a deaf man judge sound quality for you? |
Thanks for the pointer Hfisher3380 - I think I'm beginning to see the light...this definitely looks like something I want to keep my eye on. |
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. |
Hfisher3380, you act like you have never heard of
"Headroom". I have tried many XRCD, XRCD 24, K2 HD CD.
All of them playable on standard CD Players. Obviously,
on 16 Bit/44.1 CD. The higher Sampling Rate of the Master
(Or Remaster) does make an audible difference! There was
a time when everyone believed that the Entropy of the
Universe could be reversed, and multiple generations of
CD Copies would sound exactly the same as the original.
Cooler heads prevailed, but now Entropy reversal myth is
back once again with Computer Files. Must we change all of
the Laws of the Universe with Flat Earth logic again? Been
there, done that! Can we learn from our mistakes, and
finally move on? You make a Copy you are going to lose
a little (Maybe insignificant to some, maybe significant
to others). If the original Copy is of a Higher Resolution
(If it is done correctly), maybe you will lose a little less with "MORE" Resolution Headroom in the Master. You can
argue the merits of this. I just know that I can hear a difference as opposed to original 16 Bit/ 44.1 Digital Masters used for CD. Concidering we ended up with 12 to 14 Bit Copies of these in CD, just about ANY improvement would be welcome. I certainly can hear it. Not to say that it is always perfect, nothing is in the Digital World. That
includes Computer Audio. That is the reason to take the
best from many Digital Formats including Computer Audio.
If "It is The Music that Matters", it is the only logical
thing to do. Single Format logic would be the anti-thesis
of this, even if this "Makes No Sense". |
Ivan, "audio-only" computers already exist. See Linn Akurate and Bryston BDP-1, amongst others. However, it is not that difficult to gather info on the net about optimizing your own off-the-shelf computer system for server use. Most of us who frequent forums like this have done it. It's actually kind of hands-on and fun! The beauty of it is that for less than $1K you can get an optimized Mac Mini, for example. Then add a suitable DAC and you can have a state of the art digital front end for way less than a top-flight optical player.
Rare to be able to do something like that in the crazy world of high fidelity audio! |
