Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

I agree with you Petty. Some folks out there already know the very limitations you point out with computer audio and they are beginning to take matters into their own hands and move the ball forward, not waiting around for the industry to catch up. This is how I suspect the revolution will get started (whether it will be televised or not is another matter). For one example, you could go to the facebook site of Alan Maher Designs and take some time to sift through his ongoing posts (some recent, others past) about computer audio, exactly what kind of computer Alan envisions is required for music, his own attainable gains in sound quality that can be had with his method of ripping CD's compared to CD's by themselves, water cooling, superority of FLAC vs WAV, etc, etc - all rather advanced, I admit, but to me this sort of thing is what's needed - there needs ot be a full-blown example in the marketplace that people can point to and recognize that it works. Expensive?? Initial iterations usually are, but you can always streamline from there. First you just gotta show people that the concept works (and how Well that it works). I believe that day is coming, but I imagine that we can only depended on computer companies to wait around until someone else begins eating their lunch before they will begin to decide exactly what they want to do about it.

Even if a recording is mastered in 32 bit, once you hear it on a redbook CD player you are hearing it in 16/44. That's just the way it is, Petty - that's the technology.

On the other hand, it is possible to hear such a recording in its native resolution on a computer, of course, since the original file is on a computer.

I agree with you that competition is a good thing - but the market and consumers will ultimately decide which formats succeed and which fail.

And yet, Chadeffect, I am looking at High Res. Optical
Disks on "Elusive Disks". They are claimed to have been
Remastered at 32 Bits, and are claimed to be playable in
all CD Players. New Releases in Vinyl on harder material
180 Gram Records are springing up all over. Now if the
Sound Quality of these is even better than 24/192 High
Res. Downloads (Big if-plus there is possibility of DXD),
someone is going to want to know how they can get
32 Bit/ DXD Downloads. The heat is on High Res. Computer
Audio Downloads to compete in sound quality. THIS is
EXACTLY what I am talking about! The exact opposite would
be true in a single Audio Format of exclusive Music Audio
Downloads. A tide raises all boats. With competition we
stand to get more "Bang for the Buck" in Sound Quality.
Without it Sound Quality gets stuck in the mud. This would really be a bad business decision for the Consumer to
eliminate all of his options (Formats) in this Market. Bad Call- Bad Timing!!! Of course embraising this competition
puts more heat on Computer Manufacturers to cut into their
Profits to boost sound quality. They will be forced to come
up with a way to Download 32 Bit Releases, if not DXD. That
is going to cost them a pretty penny. They are not blind to this, a single Format (Downloading) being way more
Profitable for them without any other competing Format. Is
it out of profitable convenience for them to convince as
much of the American Public as possible that "No one is really interested in Higher Sound Quality". Is it really true, or just a "Profitable" Myth being perpetuated? I still hear rumors of the Major Picture Industry concidering
using DXD in their Soundtracks for their Movies. Finally,
there might be some real competition to get the ball rolling on sound quality!

(Very interesting and somewhat surprising.)
My thoughts as well.

Thanks for the tip on the Supratek blog. http://supratekaudio.blogspot.com/.

Very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Regards,

I was on the Supratek website the other night.Mick has a blog that has some interesting info on his work with computer audio.Good reading.

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)

My point, Hfisher, is if someone were to come out with an
High Resolution Optical Disc Format (With Properly Remastered Release) that turned out to sound better than
High Res. Downloads- I would still want both options. I
keep on seeing 32 Bit Mastered Optical Disks being sold on
"Elusive Disks". They claim that these Disks can still be played on a regular CD Player. New Releases of Vinyl on
much harder material in "180 Gram" might be promising- same
source. What I want is the freedom to try these things,
and determine for myself weither the Sound Quality is worth it or not. Of course quality of original Recording
will determine Sound Quality, unless Remastering really helps. Experimenting still going on, and I want to have the
options of trying these things. Still think Meridian Lossless Packing was the best sounding Optical Disk Format that I ever heard. I am still smarting from THAT option being yanked from the Music Selection Department. This is
what I see with my light bulb on, a whole lotta damn good
sounding Music going to waste. It isn't pretty. Single
Format market of Downloading, no matter how inevitable it
might be or if anyone desires it, could cost us alot in
selection of High Sound Quality Audio Formats. No Audio Market likes uncertainty, I don't like it either. This is
the reason that I need something really substantial in
Music Selection for whatever High Resolution Audio Format
the Audio Market accepts. Careful with those light bulbs,
you might not like what you see. You will see the "The Good-The Bad- and the Ugly" in sharp relief of any Format.
One question: Can't find "Ladies' Jazz Vol.5" on optical
Disk. I have been streaming it, and it sounds really good-
especially Julie London with tons of depth soundstage. I am getting the feeling that it only exists as MP3 or as a
Download. Can't tie down the source other than Warner Music Poland. Don't want to use i-Tunes, don't like mixing
MAC Software with Windows 7 PC. I had a hell of a time getting rid of it- not again! This isn't the first time that I have come across Music only available as a
Download. It won't be the last (Yeah, Yeah...I know. Just
Download it, and Burn it!). Would like to know of the original source. Can't seem to find it with many Downloadable releases- Uncertainty??? It isn't available in HD Tracks. Other than i-Tunes, where is it at?

Wow Petty - looks like the light bulb finally came on. No reasonable person is trying to wipe out any format. Whether or not I listen to SACD I derive absolutely no benefit from it being wiped off the face of the earth. I do believe that eventually optical discs may be a thing of the past but this doesn't mean I wish it to be so. I still buy the odd CD from time to time - and tons of vinyl.

Anyways, looks like cooler heads have prevailed. Surely the love-fest can't be far behind!

Enjoy the music - on whatever format you choose!

Timlub- point well taken. It is not what you say, but how
you say it. "Soon all New Music will only be available as
Music Downloads" sounds like a dire warning. It screams
"Get rid of your SACD, MLP, DVD-Audio, Blue-Ray Audio, and
Vinyl. They will be gone. Your only access to New Music will be exclusively Music Downloads". "..Any Format that
has merit will stay"- doesn't quite jive with this. Selection in CD Resolution Music Downloads is certainly there. Selection in High Res. Music Downloads, is it there
to replace High Res. SACD/ MLP/ DVD-Audio/ and Blue-Ray
Audio? Is it there to replace Vinyl Selection? Do we lose
any Music Selection in switching over to "Soon all New Music will only be available as Music Downloads". To me
that is the most important part of "It is the Music that
Matters".
Not entirely sure that I got it right with DXD. I do
know that Sony Music has copied many of their Analog Master
Tapes to DSD. I do know that they are Remastering many of
these aging Music Releases in the digital domain. I am sure
that there will be mixed results. Not sure what the
Professional Studios are using these days for Recording.
I guess that the important thing is headroom. Having the
final Master of higher Resolution than the final copy,
Disk or Downloaded File. DXD will provide this since it is
stored as a File with many times more resolution at much
higher Sampling Rate. Live Recordings were made to Master
Analog Tape, I am certain the same will be done with New
Music in DXD- if it is not already being done. How will
limiting us to 24/192 Downloads eventually be affected by
DXD- I have no idea! I am pretty damn certain that the
Software for DXD will be really protected. How long that will last- I don't know! I did find a Studio here in
Seattle real close that uses DXD. I don't believe that it is the only one in the Country that uses it. I think that
the Motion Picture Industry is using DXD in Mastering their
Soundtracks- don't quote me on that. DXD could really take off in New Music Rcordings. New Music could certainly
benefit. Old Master Analog Recordings Remastered in DXD
might benefit based on how well it is Remastered. I
wouldn't necessarily chuck the Vinyl yet. I still think that high Sound Quality would thrive better if more variety in Formats is used- within reason. Reasonable
people can disagree.

"Pettyofficer, I have to say, last post was pretty well written."

Well, maybe but formatting and 1 big run on paragraph is still an issue.

PO, if you can get the format for your digital posts down better that might help you in the credibility department when demonstrating your expertise in all things computer.

o -
^
\___/

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.

Pettyofficer, I have to say, last post was pretty well written. I'm not sure how accurate all the studio info was, but point taken. The point that I cannot take is all the hype about the insecurity of all the other formats and writing it as though all of us want those formats to go away... any format that has merit, will stay. I really feel (no offense intended) that all EVERYONE is asking you is "why all the paranoia of formats failing"? We are all open minded toward other formats and as I had written previously, I believe anyone on this thread would try another if it had merit.

The point was that Chadeffect said a mouthful, when he
said "It is the Music that matters". I believe the
Studios refer to DXD as the Format that is higher sampling
Rate than DSD. Most Music is still stored on Master Analog
tape, which are deteriorating. DXD is a process of transfering these to multi-track mixing console in DXD
higher sampling format. They can then be Remastered using
the DXD process. That doesn't mean upsampling, or downsampling. That means Remastering in the digital domain
in each track of DXD. "I can't imagine Pro's using anything
less...."? ??? DXD is higher sampling rate than 24/192, it is even higher than DSD. They would have to downsample it
to 24/192, or DSD. Not only is DXD a higher sampling rate,
it is used as higher sampling rate for multi-tracks.
As far as wandering diatribe, "It is the Music that matters" counts far more than "Soon all new Music will only be available as Music Downloads". High Quality sounding Music "Matters" more with multi-Formats as opposed to just one. All Formats suffer from badly recorded Music, and many benefit from well recorded Music. Remastering can help, but no guarantee it will sound better, if not worse. In this regard some might prefer the untainted version in its original Format. You lose this access converting to strictly Downloading Format only. Take the best of CD, SACD, MLP, DVD-Audio, Vinyl, and yes Computer Audio Downloads, as well as High Res. Downloads. Every Format is going to have more than its share of screw-ups. Take the cream of the crop from each Format, instead of just exclusively one. You will have a hell of allot more cream that way. That is how you make "Music that Matters". You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in severely limiting yourself to only one possible source (Format) of well recorded Music. It will be a whole lot less cream with a severely limited crop of only one Format. As far as large Music selection of well recorded Music, one man (Format) traveling band just wouldn't provide it. Only when you prove it otherwise (Way Larger
Selection) are you ready then to concider a single Format option. I sense a rush to panic in this rapid acceleration to a single Format option, without making sure that L-A-R-G-E Selection is available for everyone. Forcing many to lose their favorite Music does not serve "It is the Music that Matters". Couldn't be anymore clearer than that! There
seems to be alot of fear that as Computer Audio takes off,
it needs to be written in stone via the market eliminating
all other Audio Formats. What I don't get is this level of
insecurity. It makes me feel like I should be nervous about
Computer Audio- should I be? If you are really secure about this Format, other Formats being around shouldn't even be a concern. Why the huge concern? Do you understand the huge concern at the possible premature elimination of all other Audio Formats, and statements to the same? I prefer to keep my options open, and I stand up to those who
wish to eliminate my options. If this makes no sense
what-so-ever, so be it. Let it be!

So what Petty - what of all the studios that record in 24/192 and downsample to the 16/44 on your CDs? Somewhere in your latest wandering diatribe there must be a point.

Yep, Chad is right on... I don't have a ton of time in a real studio, but I have been running 48 channel boards in churches & such for several years... Lately we drop everything right to a file in 24/96, keep the file in high res, but down convert nearly all to cd quality at 16/44.1. I've dropped a few things right to a thumb drive and brought them home to evaluate the mix, shows right up at 24/96....
I realize the petty is talking about studios, but I just can't imagine pro's using anything less.... Unless they are still stocking reel to reel as masters..... I doubt it.

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.

So many distortions, so little time. I will save the response to personnal attacks, Chadeffect, and go to the
heart of the matter. Recording Studios ARE using a higher
Sampling Rate TO RECORD. A higher sampling rate than even
DSD. The cost of this (Software, with mixing capability
for many multi-channels) is NOT something that you can just
whip up on a small laptop. It is not inexpensive- must you
always think small (Oooops! my bust). Some of the "Lovely
Old Formats" that I am fond of happen to be Meridian Lossless Packing Multi-Channel 24/96, 24/192 Disks. Also
SACD Disks, and I hear that Blue-Ray Audio Disks don't
sound too shabby either. High Resolution Files DO cost alot
more to MIX and MASTER using higher than DSD Multi-Channel
Format. Remastering isn't cheap either! Convenient for you
to be selective in only refering to just storing, and
Downloading the Final Master. Not one word about the
Mastering process itself- the biggest cost! Every word in
your response is a complete distortion- I call that a little more than a grasp!
Hfisher- more distortions! Your own response on 06-19-12
"Wow, Thread Resurrected.....! Are you rewriting history?
I was DONE with this Thread until one of you clowns dug it
back up. I have been trying to bury it again, except you clowns keep on coming up with a new whole set of distortions!
Mapman- you are harping about Record Players, and I don't
even own one! I would be happy with SACD, MLP, XRCD, and
even High Res. Downloads.
You guys can't even shoot straight, no wonder High Res.
keeps failing over, and over again. Like I have said many
times before, if High Res. Downloads/Computer Audio falls flat on its face it will be because of you clowns!
"Please remember that well recorded crap, or High Res. crap
is still crap. It is the Music that matters". Wasn't I the one who claimed access to many Formats desirable so that
one can cherry pick the high quality sounding ones from the rest in each Format? I have been preaching "It is
the Music that Matters" more over limiting everyone to "Soon all New Music will ONLY be available as Downloads"! Obviously, you have finally got it!!! Please
don't be stupid in not realizing it. If everyone is finally through tripping over their own feet, I will make this my last response. Dog pile with a whole new set of
distorted responses- all bets are off! Ball is in your
corner if you never want to see me on this Thread again.
Do you guys just like digging up corpses so you can torture them? GROW UP!!!

They still sell cheapo record players at Target for about $100.

Should those be improved? Or should those who can afford better just look elsewhere?

Do you tend to think red or blue on such things?

Same with computer audio. There is some really bad lots of mediocre and some very good! Something for everyone!

This thread is like my wife's people magazine. You know it is plain stupid, but when it is right in front of you, you sometimes can't help opening up a copy to check on the status of Tom Cruise's divorce.

Bless your tortured soul Tim !!!!!

Petty reminds me of my ex wife

Good points yet again Chadeffect - which will come to no avail. When in doubt, refer to the original question in the thread - "should sound quality of computer audio be improved"? The answer is actually quite simple - YES!! Sound quality of every format should be improved. All the other crap Petty has carried on in this thread is merely smoke and mirrors distracting from this focus.

But once again he has let me down! He PROMISED - oops, I mean THREATENED - to end this thread - yet there he is posting the same old thing.

Please, Petty...I implore you...PLEASE finally follow through with your threat. You made your point 2 pages ago, are not listening to a word we say, and are completely obfuscating your own tired arguments. Please give it a rest - please follow through on your own THREAT once and for all!

I expect that we have heard the last of you. Thanks for dropping by - it was fun while it lasted!

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?

I don't know- Hfisher. Being burned a T-H-I-R-D time
investing heavily in High Resolution (SACD,DVD-Audio,
Downloads), or being burned by you? Somehow I think the
latter is a whole hell of alot cheaper. Maybe cutting my
$$$ LOSES $$$ by limiting them to SACD/DVD-Audio selection
rip-off, perhaps that might be better. You have money to
burn risking on High Resolution Downloads not becoming the
third High Resolution casualty- knock yourself out! Some
of us are just tapped out from this economy, and tapped out
from false promises of SACD/DVD-Audio Selection. Really,
Hfisher, have you learned nothing from this High Resolution
history debacle? The market doesn't really care if it is a
High Resolution Disk, or Download- they are both just as
expensive. The Audio Market has convinced everyone that
"The majority of the American Public are not interested in
higher Audio Sound Quality"- I am! That is the reason why
I try not to allow the market to create a third High
Resolution casuality out of Downloads. The Market wants
cheap, therefore low sound quality. The Manufacturers want
to produce cheap as being way more profitable. SACD, DVD-Audio, and High Resolution Downloads (Expensive) just don't fit that mold! Single Format Market solution will
only end up being the "Final Solution" to High Resolution
Downloads (It will only be SACD/DVD-Audio 2.0). Sad, but
true because you refuse to acknowledge the risk of this
happening despite history of anything High Resolution. Your denial is fuel for this self fulfilling Prophecy. Do as you wish, do your worse! I personally would have liked to have atleast just ONE High Resolution Format that didn't implode- many regrets!!! They pretty much implode
do to apathy, and the lack of any attempt to prevent them
from imploding. You want High Resolution Downloads to
succeed, you have to fight for it. That means taking on the
manufacturers desire to produce Audio cheap, and more profitable. No-one here is willing to do that! R-I-P is
inevitable now with High Resolution, it is already way too
late! Not that this would change anyone's mind here. So
yeah, Another threat, Impending Doom. The only difference
is that it is NOT what I desire, but what you are fulfilling- despite any of my attempts otherwise. So be it-
can we end this Thread now? I will volunteer to be a pole
bearer at the Funeral, if that will make anyone happy.
I kind of liked High Resolution, I am going to miss it-
Thank-you kindly for helping to preserve it. Wish that I
could LOL, really sad day for Audio. What else needs to be said??? How about "Have we learned anything yet?", the
third time around? Guess not!

"Can we end this Thread now? It no longer serves any purpose". Another threat? Impending doom? LOL!!!

Petty Officer "threatening" to back out of the dialogue! LOL! What ever are we going to do!?!?

There are no suckers here, nor anyone nieve. If you can't
learn from the past market history of High Res. SACD/
DVD-Audio (And how it applies to marketing of High Res.
Downloads), I can't help you! The history of High Res.
(Disk or Download) has been to continuously rob us blind
with false promises of larger selection. It is a shell
game marketing ploy! I have earned the right to be cynical
about being burned a T-H-I-R-D time (Sheeesh!) with High
Resolution. That doesn't mean that I hope it will fail a
third time (I still use Computer Audio). It means that
I need verification that there is indeed much larger
selection available via High Res. Downloads B-E-F-O-R-E
any concideration of elimination in other Audio Formats.
The old SACD/DVD-Audio arguement that increased selection
is entirely dependent on the elimination of other Audio
Formats- THIS IS CRAP! Applying this same marketing idea
to High Res. Downloads, this is a shell game for someone
else's profitability- NOT YOURS (THE CONSUMER)!!! If you
(The Consumer) will not look after your own interest in
Sound Quality someone will steal it. With an invitation
like that, how can they not? Not against anyone making a
profit, just put on the table (Selection) what it is that
you intend to make a profit off of from me. Let me see it,
let me kick the tires, let me protect myself as a consumer. In what Universe does this make no sense? I am
in the business of purchasing High Res./ High Quality Audio, and I know what I want! A whole lot of "Hot Air",
or "Soon To Be", is NOT Music to my ears. Certainly nothing that I can take to the Bank, certainly nothing that I can use to replace my existing Music Audio Formats!
Atleast something that I can use as a Higher Resolution
Source. In this regard, you have nothing to sell me in
substantial selection of High Resolution. This can change,
B-U-T not by holding my other Audio Formats as hostage.
Holding hostages is prelude to causing Wars, still it makes no sense to you why some of us are so angered by it-
REALLY? Chadeffect- not one word in your response about
Music sampling rate of these Files. Studios are now using
a Format of even higher sampling rate than SACD/DSD for
recording. You can keep on believing that you are getting
the full resolution that was recorded in the Studio, and
paying top dollar for it. By your standard why pay a whole
lot more to download anything of "high Res", if you are
already getting everything recorded in the Studio? What
do I know, I make "NO SENSE"! Can we end this Thread now?
It no longer serves any purpose. It just rubs everyones
emotions raw. Why continue to go there?

Hi Tpreaves,
I'm a sucker for punishment.

Why do you keep trying to make sense with this guy?

Chadeffect- Now you've gone and spoiled POs fun!!!!!

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.

Listen, I am onto Manufacturers selling us SACD selection-
then leaving us holding the bag. I am onto Manufacturers
selling us 16 Bit/ 44.1 CD- then leave us holding the bag
with 12-14 Bit CDs. I am onto Manufacturers selling us
DVD-Audio/MLP selection- then leaving us holding the bag on
that one. I am old, and cynical from my experience with
New Formats. If you don't hold Manufacturers feet to the fire of actually delivering larger selection of High Res.
Downloads- it will never happen. There is just too much
Profit temptation to offer the Public a cheaper lower Res.
Format via Computer Downloading. If that happens, and
lower Res. becomes "Soon all new Music will only be
available via low Res. Downloads", we do not have an
alternative in a single Format Market. Low Res. will be
the Manufacturers version of "This is not Burger King,
you take it our way or you don't get the S.O.B.". If the
Public clamors for cheaper low Res. Downloads in a single
Format Market, you no longer have any leverage to demand
any High Res. anything. I don't think that this Market
Strategy escapes these Manufacturers. They will be able to charge anything they want for low Res., and you will pay
for it dearly without any alternative. High Res. Downloading Market Share today is just a blip on the
Radar Screen. It can easily disappear permanently- like
SACD, like DVD-Audio. It is at the same stage with low
selection. Crazy me trying to preserve High Res. the third
time around by demanding a higher standard/ higher selection for Computer Audio Downloads. Eliminating other
alternatives without larger slection of High Res. Downloads
available- is the quickest way of pulling out the rug from
anything High Res. Monopoly will dictate our future of
lower sound quality. Sorry that everyone can't see it.
You can't possibly be oblivious to what happened to SACD, DVD-Audio. History WILL repeat itself if you are not careful with Computer Audio. Do what you will. This is my
final word on this. This Zombie isn't going to be Ressurected for a second time- Hell is just going to have to let me in, crowded or not! I still enjoy High Res.
Downloads, even if they do have a life span of SACD/DVD-Audio. It would be a damn shame, and a third strike for
High Res. I would be careful at what I was swinging at!

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.

Realistically everyone is using 16/44.1 or higher. I really don't think ANYONE is using MP3 for their main listening....why do you keep bringing MP3 into the conversaton. same ole lame arguments, can you say anything productive?
These arguments are just plain stupid.
Please just use your 8 track tapes or what ever you do and leave us computer guys alone. Man this is tiresome.

I don't call lowering sound quality down to less than CD
Resolution MP3 as being "Flexible"! I see a historical
trend of dumming down sound quality from Vinyl to CD, and
then from CD to lower Resolution MP3. What will be the
lower resolution Computer Audio of tomorrow, and will it
squeeze out any chance for High Res. anything? This is
flexibility? Eight Track, and Cassettes were flexible-
I don't see them around anymore. Keep the trend of lowering
resolution going, and pretty soon these ancient Formats
would sound better. How about if we cut the resolution of
low res. MP3 in half to really boost flexibility. Keep
cutting it in half again, and again doubling our flexibility everytime. What is your point? Put square tires
on your car to increase flexibility in choice of tires?
There was a time when the idea of a New Format meant an
increase in Sound Quality, not the flexibility of worse
Sound Quality. Where is the flexibility in Music Selection
for High Resolution Downloads? All that I see is a
Computer Audio Format that is 10% High Res. Downloads, and
90%- CD Res. or Lower than CD Res. MP3. Where is the
flexibility in High Res./ High Sound Quality in that?
Don't try to sell me that it is just around the corner, or
"Soon To Be". You might as well be trying to sell me SACD
again. Show me the High Res. Selection first BEFORE we
start eliminating any Formats. You can keep the rest of
that low Res. MP3 Computer crap! Flexibility my butt! I
don't buy "Lemmons", or "Money Pits" for the sake of
flexibility. Do you purposely shop for rotten vegetables
at the local market, lower quality for the sake of
flexibility- I THINK NOT! You would have me special order
my rotten vegetables through the mail- ain't that special.
You can still buy the freshest vegetables at the local
market, unless the demand for rotten vegetables is so high
that rotten vegetables is the only thing that they stock on the shelf. The stench would be horrendous, you know that- who are you trying to kid? That is what really stinks about this whole Computer Audio Downloading Format-
the idea that lower than CD Res. isn't just acceptable, it
is encouraged by you as a "Flexible" alternative. Cans and
String are cheap/ flexible too! What is your point? "Soon
all new music will only be available via cans and string"?
Euuuwww- I am blown away by the flexibility here. You want
flexibility try Yoga. You want low res. flexibility, try
Yoga in Sewage Treatment Plant. Shoot me for trying to
aspire to non-flexible higher Sound Quality. I am just "Nuts", "Paranoid", and "On Drugs"! Raw Sewage,
Rotten Vegetable, Low Resolution Audio Formats just don't
appeal to me. Shove it down my throat, you go ahead and try!

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.

I had moved on, Chadeffect. Someone else had ressurected
this Thread "Walking Dead" Style. You would know this if
you had kept up with the Thread. I still don't get your
Orwellian "Doubletalk", or "Doublespeak" within the same
breath. You say no-one is threatening to eliminate
competing Formats. Then you say (In the same breath) that
it is just that most people own Computers, and that it is
just a natural selection. You are making me dizzy with your
hopping from one foot to the next. Would most of these
people, who own Computers, be listening to mostly lower
than CD Resolution MP3? I hear that there is alot of Profit
in that. Invest your time, and money in that if your Sound
Quality takes a back seat to someone elses Profit! They might even thank-you for it. One can always hope. Just
don't expect strictly Profit motivated Computer Audio Manufacturers to suddenly turn away from lower than CD Res. MP3 Profitability, and risk Margin in boosting
costly High Res. Download Selection. It is not that they
could produce High Res. more inexpensively, it is just that
Profit Margin on larger Low Res. MP3 market will always be
many times greater. Even if I were them I would have to ask: "Why in the World am I even wasting so much of my
resources on High Res. Downloads with a tiny Market? Now
low Res. MP3- LOOK AT ALL OF THAT CHEDDAR!!! Just got to
get over that hump of percieved lower Sound Quality. Just
gotta delude everyone to get onboard with false promises
of a soon to be gravy train of High Res. Selection (SACD 2.0)". Congradulations, you have just become the 21st Century version of "Pavlov's Dogs". They ring a bell, you will drool, and you will pay anything to be fed. You wont even mind the low quality taste of the dirt you are being fed, after all it is the most convenient thing for you to feed on- especially if it is the only thing available for you to feed on! You wont even remember what High Res., or High Quality anything is anymore. Some of us just don't want to go there with our Music, because we are just "PARANOID" of sound quality becoming THAT irrelevant! We are funny that way. You want exclusionary Format
Authority over everyone? You have to earn it with a large
enough selection in High Res./ High Quality. "Soon all
new Music will only be available as lower than CD Resolution MP3 Downloads"- Ooops! Where did we go wrong
Mr. "WESTWORLD"? Me thinks that you will never be ready to
take over the Audio Market with this level of incompetence.
Try not tying your shoelaces (Logic and Reason) together
in a knot. Try following the "MONEY" to determine someones
intent, and motivation for a change, KAA-CHING!!!

I occasionally check this threat to see if Pettyofficer is still at it. He never disappoints. Entertaining as hell. He couls publish this as "ramblings of an paranoid audiophile" and make a killing.

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.

"Soon all new Music will only be available on Vinyl Disk",
Nope- haven't heard that from Vinyl Enthusiasts.
"Soon all new Music will only be available as SACD",
Nope- haven't heard that from SACD Enthusiasts.
"Soon all new Music will only be available on Blue-Ray
Audio", Nope- haven't heard that from Blue-Ray Audio
Enthusiasts. Ad Nauseum for every single Format out there
other than Computer Audio. Many claim that their particular
Format sounds better than others, but no-one has suggested
the total elimination of all other Formats for the sake of
their favorite. Apparently, Computer Audio is the ONLY
Format that requires the elimination of all other competing
Formats- to insure of its continued success in the
Marketplace. It is the only one whose Enthusiasts demand
(Under Threat of Impending Doom to other Formats) that
everyone switch over yesterday. Single Format, Manufacturer's lower Sound Quality, Manufacturer's boost
Profit, and what recourse would you have? Threaten to switch to another Format if they don't produce more High
Res. Downloads? They would never do this? They already have
with lower than CD Resolution MP3. This was a business
proposition they used to boost their Profits, yet you still
trust them with producing more High Res. Downloads. Again,
Common Sense Consumer Protectionism- VERIFY that larger
selection in High Res. Downloads is being produced. Crazy
me kicking tires, and checking the quality of a product
(Format) before I commit to purchasing it exclusively! You
are cynical towards me. I am cynical towards Mr.
production of lower than CD Res. MP3- especially if he is
promising me the Holy Grail of High Res. Download Selection. If I have nothing to take to the Bank yet- I am
not exclusively buying it. Crazy me to include a Backup
Format- I thought that is what Computer Audio Enthusiasts
did with Backup Hard Drives! I see, when I do it I must be
on Drugs. Just let all existing Audio Formats be. You
remember the Beatles Song, "Let It Be". When the quality,
and selection is there people will seriously concider
switching. If it doesn't happen, then no-one was serious
about producing High Res. Downloads after all. Now where
would that leave us without any alternative? I am not
paying any hard money for a whole lotta "Soon To Be"! I
would be "NUTS" to do so.

Psssst....hey guys, I think Pettyofficer may be on to us. Y'know...our
conniving plan to wipe out all other Audio Formats and
shove Computer Audio down His Throat yesterday? He may be on to
the fact that we are in cahoots with Bill Gates and the ghost of
Steve Job to turn the Audio Market into a Monopoly. Heck, I'm even
beginning to Suspect that he is aware of Our Plan to get him into a
North Korean Concentration Camp where he has to listen to MP3's of
Nickelback on a Bose Wave system for 2 years straight. OK everyone...in the interest of not getting caught I suggest you all
Disband and go your Separate Ways...as you were!!

Hi Pettyofficer, Do you go over to the analog forum and beat down the vinyl only guys? Don't they need to expand their minds?
I believe that we all appreciate and respect a vinyl lover, I've never seen a harsh word from you toward vinyl... Computer audio is certainly the most growing segment of the industry, but if you don't think someone would jump on another winning format???? You Did, are you more or less intelligent than someone that hasn't used as many formats as you have? I still have vinyl, I am going to sell my tubed CD player soon, for me, I'm done with it. If another winning format comes along, you can bet that I, you and most other audiophiles will check it out... this pending doom is a bunch of bull.
You've taken a alot in this thread, i appologize for any part that I've had in that, please just stop making things personal and you will find more friendly responses. Even though I disagree with you, you've stood your ground voraciously, I have to respect that.... Good luck with your tunes, Tim

"Competition among many Formats is the only way to keep
sound quality standards high. "

There are many downloadable digital formats available at all resolutions, less than, equal to, and greater than CD redbook. FUrthermore, conversion among them as needed is quite straightforward from a technical perspective, though not always very user friendly to date, but that will improve over time and should become totally transparent to the user at some point.

VInyl will likely retain a (small) niche as well for those who want to go that way.

So I really do not see a problem. Other than that we all know that corporations often worship at the alter of the mighty dollar, yen, gold, or whatever monetary standard is preferred.

For me it still remains a mixed bag of sound quality across
all Formats. Anyone says that they have never heard a really lousy Vinyl Record, lousy High Res. Download, lousy
sounding SACD/ DVD Audio/ or CD- I certainly don't believe
them! Way too many broad strokes. I will hop from one Format to the next to get the sound quality I want, and
pick-choose along the way. All of that goes out the window
if "Soon all new Music will only be available as Music Downloads". That is the ultimatum of impending doom. It is
meant as a warning that soon you won't be able to rely on
any other Audio Formats. It is meant to cajoule, herd,
panic, and stampede. It is phsycological extortion- a tool
to pull peoples strings regardless weither it is fact or not. It is not a true measure of the worthiness in quality
of a new Format if the purpose is to panic everyone.
Competition among many Formats is the only way to keep
sound quality standards high. Single Format exclusiveness
only goes the way of irrelevancy like the DO-DO Bird and
eight track. We certainly didn't concider "Soon all new Music will only be available on 8-Track". Sound Quality
in the Market would have been ALOT different if we had.
Thank God we held onto other Formats! This costs Manufacturers Profits to maintain High Sound Quality. Their
goal is to still corral the Audio Market around a single
Format. Eliminate the competing Formats that compels them
to dip into their Profits to maintain high sound quality-
i.e. low res. MP3. No reason to replace all Formats with an
exclusive one, unless it is for Profit. Sound Quality goes
down (MP3) only to boost Profits up. They maintain a
stranglehold on releases available as High Res. Downloads.
It is a trickle, but it is getting better. If you see a
flood, that is the time to concider exclusively switching
Formats. It is a Chicken vs Egg business proposition with
these characters. Don't trust their promises on High Res.
Downloads yet- same promises made with SACD! Make them
show us the product first. Common sense Consumer Protectionism, but what do I know? I am crazy, ask anyone!

"I have a computer audio setup that competes if not betters some of the best CD players on the market at pricing that I could afford where the best cd was out of my reach and yes, when you combine this sound quality with convenience it makes this a no brainer for me.."

Me too. Good point!

Petty officer, you actually inferred that computer audio is better than cd, as was sacd... wow, a very big step for you. I have heard that a WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE invested in sacd over that "slightly better" difference...
I'm sure that you feel attacked by this thread... My issue is that it seems that you keep making it personal toward all of us computer audio lovin thugs rather than just the arguments of computer audio alone. I've seen printed YOU THINK more times than worth counting... where does Ulitimatum come from?
What it comes down to is Value for me. I have a computer audio setup that competes if not betters some of the best CD players on the market at pricing that I could afford where the best cd was out of my reach and yes, when you combine this sound quality with convenience it makes this a no brainer for me... I must say though if it didn't have this level of sound quality, I'd throw convenience out the window. Just as you, I am greedy also, I want it all, Computer audio, so far has come the closest in giving me all.
It sounds like you have terrible computer problems with all the issues that you have described, good luck finding a better computer, so far, mine has been flawless and I have been very happy with computer audio. I wish the same audiophile happiness to you and to all, Tim

"Computer Audio makes as much sense as a nuclear powered Can Opener. "

Great line PO!

Thank God PEtty is back among us. PO, please, save us!!

"Just when I am almost out, they drag me back in"!
I was done with this Thread, now I feel that I am in
an Episode of the "Walking Dead"! Of course the marketing
idea is to put Computer Audio (especially Downloads) in
direct competition with other Audio Formats. The competition is deadly with Computer Audio Proponents going
for the throats of other Formats. How many more "Ultimatums" have to be stated by these Proponents?
If the decision was based on strictly sound quality alone,
that would be one thing. Instead I hear convenience, MP3
lower than CD resolution, and Downloads of equal resolution
as CD- High Resolution being a small minority of these. With Hard Drive Errors, Hard Drive Crash, Back-up Hard Drive Crash, Fragmentation, Viruses, Malware- where is the
quality? You have more software between you, and your Music
than you ever had with a CD. User friendly goes right out the window with the loss of plug-n-play CD. Computer Audio makes as much sense as a nuclear powered Can Opener. There
are easier ways, with alot less tasking, to listen to your
Music. More complicated, more moving parts, less user
friendly, Chaos Theory inviting- and still I use Computer Audio only during those instances when the Sound Quality presents itself! I have done the homework, and there are other Formats that have instances of sounding better. I am greedy! I am a Consumer. I look for many avenues of
quality. A Format has to "E-A-R-N" my business. Pulling
strings, pushing buttons, eliminating alternatives,
issuing Ultimatums- THIS only earns my consternation.
I still hold out hope that someday low Res. MP3, CD Res.
Downloads, will blossom into High Res. of real higher
quality. So long as High Res. remains in a strict minority
Computer Audio hasn't earned the right to replace anything.
Five year olds Downloading Music, isn't going to change that. You can put them in charge of running your Family, if
that is the case. If Computer Audio sounds slightly better
than CD, so did SACD without all of the user unfriendly
software hassle/ tasking- what is the point? Spend time
playing with Software, or spend it playing Music- your
choice. I demand that choice! Of course they call me
"Certifiable" for that! So what- commit me!

That is good of him :)