PDA

View Full Version : PETITION TO SAVE SACD



jim3860
01-20-2007, 12:22 AM
HERE IS A LINK TO SAVE SACD IF ANYONE CARES TO SIGN IT. http://www.petitiononline.com/SACD/petition.html REGARDS JIM

Maron Horonzakz
01-20-2007, 07:07 AM
A petition wont save it. Only the demands of the market place can do that. If you like SACD buy more of it.;)

Tweak48
01-20-2007, 07:19 AM
I never really understood the features and benefits of SACD (or DVD Audio for that matter), to justify the price of h/w or s/w.

Are the manufacturers pulling the plug, or are releases slowing down??

Looked like another botched format introduction (like Elcaset, Beta, and soon to be HD-DVD) to me.

Between regular CDs, vinyl, analog FM, and Sirius over house sat, I'm awash with program material. Most of it sounds pretty good too.

What I could really use is a HD video disk source for my front projection HT. A 106 inch screen needs all the resolution it can get. Now if Blu-Ray players can only hit the $200 price point.:bouncy: But that's another forum..........

avguytx
01-20-2007, 07:50 AM
Sub standard downloads are killing the market place. There will come a time when DVD's will be a thing of the past. More sooner than later. This was talked about a lot while I was at CES. That may be one of the reasons why every manufacturer of electronics isn't jumping on one of the HD bandwagons. Look what downloads have done to music for this generation. I'm still a person who buys a CD or Album be it new or used. I'm 40 so I was part of that generation that liked to "look" at something while listening to new music.

Now, DVD-A or SACD...I could honestly take it or leave it. I would only listen to it in 2 channel anyway. The 5.1 discs of those I have I'm not thrilled with but they are ok. Just my $.02.

SEAWOLF97
01-20-2007, 07:53 AM
Looked like another botched format introduction (like Elcaset, Beta, and soon to be HD-DVD) to me. ..

Beta was not a tech botch. SONY developed both BETA and VHS. In testing they found VHS to be inferior and thusly sold it off to JVC.
JVC did a better marketing job , but BETA was very popular in Europe and still in South America.

briang
01-20-2007, 08:02 AM
I love both SACD and DVD-A. Even on my mid-fi systems I can tell the difference between a 16bit/44.1kHz CD and the higher resolution SACD or 24bit/192kHz DVD-A. The resoloution is manifold better on the high-rez digital formats.

I agree that downloading of music has caused music itself to become what I call the new JEWLERY for today's music using generation. Self-worth and clique identity are all wrapped up in who has the newest and latest download...no one cares if the sound has any quality or fidelity because it is listened to on small ear buds with poor resolution and poor response. What matters today is how many songs are carried at once, and low bit rates are the rule to get there. The irony is that downloading will dilute the available quality of music for quantity of choices. I do think that the market is what it is and is never wrong, even when I'm not well served by the market.

I lament only that I am a minority in the marketplace and I will either be underserved or served at a much higher price (which I will gladly pay to keep high resolution formats available).

jim campbell
01-20-2007, 08:20 AM
done.i hope the sacd format survives.i currently own about 60 titles.thanx to jim 3860 for the heads up

jim3860
01-20-2007, 09:52 AM
A petition wont save it. Only the demands of the market place can do that. If you like SACD buy more of it.;) the reason for this petition is to show support for sacd by audiophiles. this petition is being sent to all the record labels not only sony music. perhaps if enough people sign it and show a desire to listen to sacd, other labels may take notice and release new material of there artists. which in turn will result in more albums sold. the more albums sold in turn result again in more interest by other companys. I as an audiophile strongly support any format that offers better sound. I realize that the majority of people buying albums are not buying hi res formats. primarily because the music they listen to is not available in these formats. that may change though, if we support it. as far as buying sacds I buy any album I can find that I would buy a cd of. heres a link to a great place to buy some btw. http://www.sa-cd.net/home REGARDS JIM3860

speakerdave
01-20-2007, 11:06 AM
the reason for this petition is to show support for sacd by audiophiles. this petition is being sent to all the record labels not only sony music. perhaps if enough people sign it and show a desire to listen to sacd, other labels may take notice and release new material of there artists. which in turn will result in more albums sold. the more albums sold in turn result again in more interest by other companys. I as an audiophile strongly support any format that offers better sound. I realize that the majority of people buying albums are not buying hi res formats. primarily because the music they listen to is not available in these formats. that may change though, if we support it. as far as buying sacds I buy any album I can find that I would buy a cd of. REGARDS JIM3860

The factors which have impeded the development of the SACD market are:
1-People with leather ears who have opinions about it.
2-Really cruddy analogue output sections of SACD/CD/DVD players that mask the differences between software formats.
3-Cheap SACD players that down-convert to low res formats before D/A conversion.
4-Failure by the SACD patent holders to license digital output of the signal so people can use hi fi outboard DA converters AND get the benefits of SACD.
5-Issuance of SACD's whose content is derived from low-res digital formats and not analogue master tapes or DSD recordings.

It's a great format when done right, and when it's done right, I think anyone will hear the benefit of it; I hope it survives. Its survival will probably depend on boutique labels, artists who can hear the difference and insist on using it, and the Hybrid discs. And, as was said above, buying SACD's . . . and to that I would add--buying a decent player. Also, maybe try and explain it to receptive friends, which is how I learned about it.

The number of titles seems to continue to increase. Some of the early resistance probably came from audiophiles who had high-dollar commitments to the standard CD format, but as they cycle into new equipment a player for SACD is an easy option. I hope also that some of the cheap non-SACD SACD players that were probably rationalized to broaden the installed base, have begun to disappear from the market.

David

Mr. Widget
01-20-2007, 11:52 AM
1-People with leather ears who have opinions about it.
:rotfl: :yes:



2-Really cruddy analogue output sections of SACD/CD/DVD players that mask the differences between software formats.:( :yes:


Widget

scott fitlin
01-20-2007, 12:08 PM
But you know, the industry itself did not really get behind SACD! They got behind DVD, and although there is more material available in SACD then there was 5 years ago, the avalibility of source material is miniscule compared to CD formats.

Not to mention the consumers, many lo-fi and mid-fi consumers just wouldnt buy another machine in yet another format. But everyone went and bought DVD players to watch movies!

And now, with the advent of cheap downloads and iPods, convenience, and price, not quality, have become the major factors in the American consumers decision making.

SEAWOLF97
01-20-2007, 01:49 PM
no one cares if the sound has any quality or fidelity because it is listened to on small ear buds with poor resolution and poor response. What matters today is how many songs are carried at once, and low bit rates are the rule to get there.

Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.

Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

Hoerninger
01-20-2007, 02:26 PM
...no one cares if the sound has any quality or fidelity because it is listened to on small ear buds with poor resolution and poor response.

We learned it, the kids will learn it. I remember all these broken crappy ear phones my son had. Today he has something like this little shure ear phone, there is no way back.:)
But I should show him that MP3 by 320 is better, nearly no loss compared to a CD. I will start with a new SACD. ;)
Don't we still make improvements here and there? And I think the higher the sound quality the smaller the market is.
__________
Peter

John
01-20-2007, 02:43 PM
And I think the higher the sound quality the smaller the market is.
__________
Peter


You hit that nail on the head.:applaud:

hjames
01-20-2007, 02:59 PM
Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.

Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

Bingo! I just got my 2nd iPod and I agree - I do have a few songs at 128, but I also have a ton of stuff at 192 (generally, older CDs) and much stuff at 320. I use a set of high end Sony headphones when I listen at work. I've got a dock rigged up in my CR-V so I can feed the iPod through my car stereo on the road. I can't say I've ever used the earbuds. At those data rates I carry about 4500 songs with me - in very good fidelty, I'll add. It sure beats carrying that many CDs with me!
With the pod I can set it to shuffle like a jukebox or my own radio station, I can create playlists that are like massive "mixtapes", and its all the music I like - no ads, no noise, no DJ prattling on and on.
And I still have the JBLs and the records and CDs when I am home.
What's not to like?

briang
01-20-2007, 03:46 PM
Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.

Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

Hi Seawolf. After reading your post, it seems to me that we may not disagree at all. :) IMHO, we here in this forum are the exceptional case, not the rule. :cheers: So, maybe I was not as well written as I had hoped, let me attempt to revise and extend for clarity.

My comments were observations of the broader market. In this forum, where sound quality matters to all of us, I expect most of us to rip most of our mp3 files at 320 and listen via good headphones.

However, my observations show me that, in general, the average consumer values mp3 for convenience and maximum capacity over fidelity. (FWIW, I don't think that the consumer is wrong either, they want what they want.) My concern is that the recording industry may follow the market and not place any value in high fidelity recording formats.

If my observations and conclusions are correct, the broader market will service the greater demand first (as most economic models say it should) and those who want the highest fidelity formats will likely be served later, at a higher price or not at all (hopefully the former and not the latter).

FWIW I can tell the difference between an MP3 ripped at 320 and an SACD/DVD-A of the same music. The difference isn't large, but it is there and relatively obvious when listening seriously. Most of us, even here, don't spend all of our time listening "seriously". In a car, at the office or traveling, given the convenience of portability of MP3, I will gladly sacrifice some fidelity for convenience. However, I still want the highest fidelity options to remain available for listening at home on my main system. It is my hope the recording industry can accomodate both audiences. :cheers:

SEAWOLF97
01-20-2007, 04:06 PM
Hi Seawolf. After reading your post, it seems to me that we may not disagree at all. :) IMHO, we here in this forum are the exceptional case, not the rule. :cheers: So, maybe I was not as well written as I had hoped, let me attempt to revise and extend for clarity.

My comments were observations of the broader market. In this forum, where sound quality matters to all of us, I expect most of us to rip most of our mp3 files at 320 and listen via good headphones.

:cheers:

Pretty much agree with all you have said here. I dont listen to MP3s (no matter how good they are) on the main system. They are for convienience (traveling or off-to-sleep at night)

jim3860
01-20-2007, 05:45 PM
i will have to agree with most of the posts with the reason why sacd has not took off, and why pretty much all hi res audio and video formats are not embraced by the public as a whole.and yes i think that its ok to listen to music on your ipod. mp3. vinyl. cd. car radio. or any other available source. and is signing a petition likely to save sacd? no probally not. but i also feel that this is something i can do. by signing this petition i am not idly standing by while another hi quality format bites the dust. is this akin to pissing in the wind? most likely. but i can say i did something. you cant win the lottery if you dont play.:D its a way of showing my support is all. REGARDS SNOW

Thom
01-20-2007, 06:33 PM
Do not agree. I rip CDs at 320. My little Nano stores 4 GB . Thats nearly 3 days of continuous play (if the battery made it that far).

I listen with AKG phones at home and Shure e2c's when mobile. They give darned near the sound of mid JBL's. (better than L100's)

We travel overseas nearly every year. Man, on a 23 hour trip, it is welcome. When you get to a foreign country, a little bit of familiar music is really appreciated.


Try it , you might like it. And yes, my experiences are not the general rule.

I'm not posting to tell you how strident 320 is and that I can instantly tell it from CD. I haven't tried it and I'm pretty sure that at least on some systems you cant hear the difference. I don't have specs in front of me but I would think that it must be somewhat lossy or you wouldn't be able to get so much music in such a small package. I don't have a bone to pick with anyone but praying for the continuance of high resolution material and then recording it to and listening to it from a media with (probably) much less resolution than the media that one doesn't want to have to be stuck with just struck my irony bone. It's like you go into the store and they fire up this big buck system into these big buck speakers through this expensive cable and turn on the radio. I used to see that all the time. I don't know if it's still common or not. Anyway I'm sure that one person was talking about the HiFi mp3 and another about the hi res disk.

As far as those ear buds, are you real happy with them. I bought a pair and they're OK but they aren't what I expected for the price.

I'm still playing with my current system, but a system I had in the past I could instantly tell the Revox from an LP unless it was running at 15 ips and there was so much missing from even the best FM that to me it was unlistenable. The tape thing really bumbed too because I wanted a way to play music without having to babysit a turntable. Oh cassettes were out of the question but I never got a chance ti try a nak with metal tape so I don't know how that would have been. I doubt that Mp3's would have sounded like CD's on it.
Anyway it was just about demanding hi res and then listening to pretty low res.

Titanium Dome
01-21-2007, 11:46 AM
SACD and DVD-A are specialty markets that the music manufacturers don't know how to serve. Hell, it's obvious they don't really know how to serve the mid-fi CD market.

It's a testament to the power of music and the love that people have for it that the asinine, ignorant, and greedy behavior of the labels hasn't destroyed the industry entirely. We love the music so much we put up with the shit that goes along with it.

Sending them a petition is an act of activism that I can support, but the realist in me knows that the only industry response will be related to money.

Things like MP3 players, iPods, iTunes, eMusic, and others will offer the only real shot at changing the industry's mentality by wresting the commercial clout away from the record companies and forcing them to compete on product quality rather than on monopolistic and conspiratorial practices.

We'd be better served sending a petition to Steve Jobs if we want to insure high quality source material for the future.

SEAWOLF97
01-21-2007, 12:00 PM
As far as those ear buds, are you real happy with them. I bought a pair and they're OK but they aren't what I expected for the price.


Shure E2C's are not ear buds. They are ear canal blockers. If you do not fit them correctly , they sound like $hit.

The trick is to reach over the top of your head with the opposite hand, pull UP on the top of the ear, while inserting the plug with the other hand. If done correctly, a seal is made , and sound becomes REALLY NICE. Fantastic bass , no outside noise. In your own little world. (as long as you stay inside the house - also good for ignoring your better half) :applaud:

Thom
01-21-2007, 03:11 PM
I tried different size sleeves. Haven't tried them in a while. Just kicked myself for spending that much and threw them on a shelf. Guess I'll have another go. I've never had that much lucK with the disposable hearing protectors and from what you say that's how you should install them. Should they sound as good as a really good head set?

Thom
01-21-2007, 03:19 PM
SACD and DVD-A are specialty markets that the music manufacturers don't know how to serve. Hell, it's obvious they don't really know how to serve the mid-fi CD market.

It's a testament to the power of music and the love that people have for it that the asinine, ignorant, and greedy behavior of the labels hasn't destroyed the industry entirely. We love the music so much we put up with the shit that goes along with it.

Sending them a petition is an act of activism that I can support, but the realist in me knows that the only industry response will be related to money.

Things like MP3 players, iPods, iTunes, eMusic, and others will offer the only real shot at changing the industry's mentality by wresting the commercial clout away from the record companies and forcing them to compete on product quality rather than on monopolistic and conspiratorial practices.

We'd be better served sending a petition to Steve Jobs if we want to insure high quality source material for the future.


Since the media you are talking about is all inferior to CD I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that anyone willing to put up with the quality of a CD will be willing to live with the quality of these other media and the convenience of the other media will leave more discerning listeners as the only potential audience for CD's? Sorry to have jumped in late with all the questions.

Titanium Dome
01-21-2007, 07:34 PM
Since the media you are talking about is all inferior to CD I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that anyone willing to put up with the quality of a CD will be willing to live with the quality of these other media and the convenience of the other media will leave more discerning listeners as the only potential audience for CD's? Sorry to have jumped in late with all the questions.

No.

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files, so I cannot affirm your first assumption. I have around 2,500 CDs and 2,500 MP3 or AAC files, plus a handful (less than 130) SACDs and DVD-As and 500 LPs. I'm not one to believe that any format is inherently better than another, except for cassettes I guess.

Second, appreciation of music exists on many levels, and the majority of it is different than that sought by purists and audiophiles.

Third, in a market-driven economy, mainstream companies will be chasing the dollars, not the art or the science. Only as the art and/or the science creates dollars will companies pursue a particular level of musical appreciation.

Fourth, physical media is inconvenient and cumbersome, and given the chance, people will divest themselves of the burden.

Fifth, any technology created to replace physical media will chase the most profitable level of musical appreciation as soon as possible, which is the low- and middle-levels, where market share can be created and volume can be grown.

Sixth, if we want high-level musical appreciation to be served, we'd better appeal/request/demand it of those who will control the distribution and format of the nonphysical media.

Since "record" companies are too greedy and stupid to figure out how to do this, it falls to Bill Gates (not likely), Steve Jobs (likely) or another to bring about the genesis of the distribution system, the format, and the level of quality. They're the ones who need to bring the quality upstream, not the nimrods at a record label or two or a recording association. The download sites like eMusic, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. already are serving the low and middle levels, and at least one is doing quite well. Now, how do those who want high level musical quality get it going forward?

My point was that a petition to save SACD probably won't be the answer to that question, though I support the activism behind it.

SEAWOLF97
01-21-2007, 08:05 PM
I tried different size sleeves. Haven't tried them in a while. Just kicked myself for spending that much and threw them on a shelf. Guess I'll have another go. I've never had that much lucK with the disposable hearing protectors and from what you say that's how you should install them. Should they sound as good as a really good head set?

If you are unhappy with them , wanna sell ?

Robh3606
01-21-2007, 08:10 PM
First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files,

Hello TDome

You have me scratching my head on that one. Typically MP3 AAC are compressed versions from the original wave files. How can the compressed file be superior to the originals assuming the same source??? Or are you just saying that you have heard CD's that sounded worse than the compressed formats made from a good CD "master"??

Rob:)

Titanium Dome
01-21-2007, 11:00 PM
Hello TDome

You have me scratching my head on that one. Typically MP3 AAC are compressed versions from the original wave files. How can the compressed file be superior to the originals assuming the same source??? Or are you just saying that you have heard CD's that sounded worse than the compressed formats made from a good CD "master"??

Rob:)

Some of the early CDs I have (Brothers In Arms, Dark Side of the Moon) sound great, while others sound like crap. A number of them were on-the-job-training for some guys who were cutting their teeth on mastering CDs. They could be bright, thin, edgy, ugly...

Take the 1990 imagine that by the O'Kanes on Columbia or the 1983 touch by the eURYTHMICs on RCA. Horrible, just horrible mixing, bad sound levels, unacceptable distortion...awful. (Both are from analog sources, BTW.)

The 192kbit AAC tracks I have of these albums are so much easier and satisfying to listen to. If one were to measure it out, I can imagine the CDs would produce better numbers, but they do not produce better sound.

SEAWOLF97
01-22-2007, 10:32 AM
Take the 1990 imagine that by the O'Kanes on Columbia or the 1983 touch by the eURYTHMICs on RCA. Horrible, just horrible mixing, bad sound levels, unacceptable distortion...awful. (Both are from analog sources, BTW.).

look at the legend printed on every CD..
AAD
ADD
DDD

that is the process path
A=analog D=digital
The 3someome code is RECORDING,MIX,ENCODE
The final will always be "D" on a CD

AAD is analog recording,analog mix, dig encoding
ADD is....analog recording, dig mix
DAD is ....dig rec, analog mix
you get the picture.

and of course DDD is the best.:applaud:

Thom
01-22-2007, 06:37 PM
No.

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files, so I cannot affirm your first assumption. I have around 2,500 CDs and 2,500 MP3 or AAC files, plus a handful (less than 130) SACDs and DVD-As and 500 LPs. I'm not one to believe that any format is inherently better than another, except for cassettes I guess.

Second, appreciation of music exists on many levels, and the majority of it is different than that sought by purists and audiophiles.

Third, in a market-driven economy, mainstream companies will be chasing the dollars, not the art or the science. Only as the art and/or the science creates dollars will companies pursue a particular level of musical appreciation.

Fourth, physical media is inconvenient and cumbersome, and given the chance, people will divest themselves of the burden.

Fifth, any technology created to replace physical media will chase the most profitable level of musical appreciation as soon as possible, which is the low- and middle-levels, where market share can be created and volume can be grown.

Sixth, if we want high-level musical appreciation to be served, we'd better appeal/request/demand it of those who will control the distribution and format of the nonphysical media.

Since "record" companies are too greedy and stupid to figure out how to do this, it falls to Bill Gates (not likely), Steve Jobs (likely) or another to bring about the genesis of the distribution system, the format, and the level of quality. They're the ones who need to bring the quality upstream, not the nimrods at a record label or two or a recording association. The download sites like eMusic, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. already are serving the low and middle levels, and at least one is doing quite well. Now, how do those who want high level musical quality get it going forward?

My point was that a petition to save SACD probably won't be the answer to that question, though I support the activism behind it.


Actually I believe the potential for cassette is higher than Mp3 if we're talking metal tape and a high end nak deck. (dam I wish they had put some of the cassette technology into reel to reel) I have heard cassette A/B with LP and could not tell. Today that might not mean much. I have no idea if my ears are very discerning or not but at the time that was good. Analog the limits are somewhat theoretical but with digital the limits are cold and hard unless other things limit you to less than your digital limit. But you are complaining about being limited to a media with certain numerical limits and then singing the praises of a media with cold solid numerical not theoretical limits that are vastly inferior to CD. You may not hear it. I've got a 7.2 meg camera that I love and I don't see anything wrong with the pictures except that the photographer isn't too good but it records in JPEG. I can argue about it all day long but it only kept a certain amount of the information. It's the same with your Mp3. Lots of people used to play records with a ceramic cartridge and they are in heaven. Others know, but Mp3 can sound real good and it's real convenient so they use it. You could even argue about whether or not you could tell the difference on the equipment that Mp3's are usually played on, but you are saying that it is at least as good and the numbers don't lie. It's not like speaker specs. However many bits of information it can record is it. What ever the high cut off is, is it etc and its not close to CD. They supposedly put a lot of scientific research into it to determine what data was real important to us and which wasn't quite as important. If you are buying real expensive media for its full range and then just listening to it in Mp3 you are not getting your moneys worth. If the material you buy is special mixes or performances then maybe that is something else.

Titanium Dome
01-22-2007, 09:28 PM
look at the legend printed on every CD..
AAD
ADD
DDD

that is the process path
A=analog D=digital
The 3someome code is RECORDING,MIX,ENCODE
The final will always be "D" on a CD

AAD is analog recording,analog mix, dig encoding
ADD is....analog recording, dig mix
DAD is ....dig rec, analog mix
you get the picture.

and of course DDD is the best.:applaud:

Thanks, Seawolf97, but I already knew that.

I'd agree to this: DDD has the potential to be the best. It isn't always.

Titanium Dome
01-22-2007, 09:38 PM
Actually I believe the potential for cassette is higher than Mp3 if we're talking metal tape and a high end nak deck. (dam I wish they had put some of the cassette technology into reel to reel) I have heard cassette A/B with LP and could not tell. Today that might not mean much. I have no idea if my ears are very discerning or not but at the time that was good. Analog the limits are somewhat theoretical but with digital the limits are cold and hard unless other things limit you to less than your digital limit. But you are complaining about being limited to a media with certain numerical limits and then singing the praises of a media with cold solid numerical not theoretical limits that are vastly inferior to CD. You may not hear it. I've got a 7.2 meg camera that I love and I don't see anything wrong with the pictures except that the photographer isn't too good but it records in JPEG. I can argue about it all day long but it only kept a certain amount of the information. It's the same with your Mp3. Lots of people used to play records with a ceramic cartridge and they are in heaven. Others know, but Mp3 can sound real good and it's real convenient so they use it. You could even argue about whether or not you could tell the difference on the equipment that Mp3's are usually played on, but you are saying that it is at least as good and the numbers don't lie. It's not like speaker specs. However many bits of information it can record is it. What ever the high cut off is, is it etc and its not close to CD. They supposedly put a lot of scientific research into it to determine what data was real important to us and which wasn't quite as important. If you are buying real expensive media for its full range and then just listening to it in Mp3 you are not getting your moneys worth. If the material you buy is special mixes or performances then maybe that is something else.

Thom, I think we're talking past each other here. I'm not complaining about anything, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so I'm just going to drop out here.

Peace.

hjames
01-23-2007, 04:34 AM
Well, I don't have a Nak in the car and I DO like the ability to carry 4400 tracks (songs) with me on the road in very high quality sound. Does a CD sound better at home, sure - thats why I have them. Do I want to carry 300-400 CDs with me on a trip - no way! Am I going to put a grand or so into a high end car system to have that high end home sound with me on the road - no way!

See - no one is arguing that MP3 is top of the line sound with no limitations - but - add in a few simple requirements - like portability, and the MP3 very quickly becomes useful.

Regular CD tracks are around 1440kbps. From the previous posts here it sure sounds like everyone here that uses MP3s digitizes at a high quality rate like 320kbps. Its nice that iTunes and WinAmp and other CD "ripping" software allows you to choose the fidelity you want to have. Hey, thats like setting the tape speed on those old RR decks - nobody that cared used 1 3/4 ips for QUALITY recordings, now did they?

I don't think anyone advocates using the iTunes store default rate of 128kbps. That was probably selected as a good compromise for the casual (non-critical) listener - the smaller filesize means a pretty quick download rate and allows more songs to be stored on a portable system.

Nothing is perfect - there is always a tradeoff - for most of the iPod users its the portability and ease of use.




Actually I believe the potential for cassette is higher than Mp3 if we're talking metal tape and a high end nak deck. (dam I wish they had put some of the cassette technology into reel to reel) I have heard cassette A/B with LP and could not tell. Today that might not mean much. I have no idea if my ears are very discerning or not but at the time that was good. Analog the limits are somewhat theoretical but with digital the limits are cold and hard unless other things limit you to less than your digital limit. But you are complaining about being limited to a media with certain numerical limits and then singing the praises of a media with cold solid numerical not theoretical limits that are vastly inferior to CD. You may not hear it. I've got a 7.2 meg camera that I love and I don't see anything wrong with the pictures except that the photographer isn't too good but it records in JPEG. I can argue about it all day long but it only kept a certain amount of the information. It's the same with your Mp3. Lots of people used to play records with a ceramic cartridge and they are in heaven. Others know, but Mp3 can sound real good and it's real convenient so they use it. You could even argue about whether or not you could tell the difference on the equipment that Mp3's are usually played on, but you are saying that it is at least as good and the numbers don't lie. It's not like speaker specs. However many bits of information it can record is it. What ever the high cut off is, is it etc and its not close to CD. They supposedly put a lot of scientific research into it to determine what data was real important to us and which wasn't quite as important. If you are buying real expensive media for its full range and then just listening to it in Mp3 you are not getting your moneys worth. If the material you buy is special mixes or performances then maybe that is something else.

SEAWOLF97
01-23-2007, 06:40 AM
Does a CD sound better at home, sure - thats why I have them. Do I want to carry 300-400 CDs with me on a trip - no way! Am I going to put a grand or so into a high end car system to have that high end home sound with me on the road - no way!



this is getting SPOOKY.

I can take HJs posts anymore , remove her name , put mine own on there and even I wud think that I wrote them (except for her improved grammer). Ahh , when great minds agree.... ;)

louped garouv
01-23-2007, 07:20 AM
I have to say that a large problem with digital audio, at least in Electronic Dance Music genres, is that alot of the newer generation of music producers really "normalize" tracks to death.....

it seems that everyone is in a "loudness" war, and as a result the dynamic range is pretty poor...

alot of the people playing on large (or high efficiency type) systems do tend to understand the need for much higher resolution in their audio, heck some have even been known to run pretty complicated methods to try to restore some of the analog grittyness and depth that so much of the digital media seems to have lost......

as a somewhat "extreme" (in Beatport's words) example....
http://www.wavemusic.com/community/showthread.php?t=5016&highlight=desert+island+technique


Well, I really hate the sound of MP3 files when playing out. Even CD's make my ears cringe. By now that should be fairly common knowledge.

Although I try and avoid them at ANY costs, there are situations - like today - where I am out of town and will be playing for a very large crowd tonight, and definitely need some fresh new music, which I can only get by downloading from a Digital Download Store that doesn't carry .wav files, only 320 Kb/s MP3 files.

So here's a little recipe I cooked up to try and improve sound quality while on the road, so when I play the processed files in a very large sound system they sound like something more or less bearable.

First, purchase and download the highest-resolution file you can, 320 kB/s in my case.

Then, immediately convert and save the file to 24-bit / 44.1 audio format. (I use the obsolete audio app TC Spark for that, but anything will do, really; Wavelab or SoundForge on a PC, or Peak or Logic Pro on the Mac would serve just as well)

Now you have a file which can be further processed at high-resolution.

Next, (VERY IMPORTANT) you immediately notice that the files usually are 'finalized' to death, made so loud that nothing more can be done to them, so in my case I dropped the total level about 4 db. (Go > 'change gain' -4 dB - Apply)

Once the level is down, I apply a multi-band compressor, it's a bit tedious playing with 3 or 4 separate attacks, releases, tresholds and so on. Used a Waves C4 this time, could just as well be the one in Logic Audio which I really fancy.

The result is that suddenly the file appears to be regaining some dynamic range, where the waveform was flat-lined at -4 dB, it has now peaks that sometimes reach up to 0 dB again, as well as some quieter passages.

Already sound a bit better to me.

Next, drop the level again... by about 3 dB or so. ('change gain')

After the gain is down for the second time, then apply a 'PSP Vintage Warmer' plug-in to the whole mix, the setting I liked was 'Mix semiDriven Tape' and then as if by magic, the mix has again regained much extra punch and gain, but not as before (brick-wall limiting effect with flattened waveform at -.01 dB), now it actually has real peaks and some lower parts.

Save your file, and hopefully it will sounds halfway decent on a big sound system. Even on my little hotel room speakers, I can already feel some of the harshness gone from the high frequencies, and a definite warmer bottom end.

Yeah, not ideal, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.

Curious to hear what else others may have done like this.

Of course, at home I would just pass it through a tape deck and re-touch it with a GML EQ and not have to worry too much, but this is not a luxury one has in a hotel room!! LOL!

Maybe this will help someone else who has been trying to do the same?...

FK


For the hideously limited, I'll sometimes use Enveloper (Logic's version of Transient Designer). Minimal lookahead; sharp, short attack.

Ghostface went from top view to bottom view:
http://i6.tinypic.com/1zd0isw.jpg

Occasionally, I'll roll off some highs with Tritone's Hydratone EQ (API emulation usually).

Peece,
T. Tauri



but probably 90% or more of the younger kids really never have a chance to hear lousy compressed audio on a proper system, so they just don't seem to bother...

Mr. Widget
01-23-2007, 12:08 PM
We'd be better served sending a petition to Steve Jobs if we want to insure high quality source material for the future.I would like to have the iTunes music store offer 24 bit 96KHz PCM files. If these high res files were available for purchase, I'd likely stop buying CDs and SACDs... unfortunately, currently with the music industry spending a disproportionate amount of energy on copy protection and the marketing of crap music, I am afraid I'll be waiting awhile yet.


Widget

louped garouv
01-23-2007, 03:40 PM
I would like to have the iTunes music store offer 24 bit 96KHz PCM files. If these high res files were available for purchase, I'd likely stop buying CDs and SACDs... unfortunately, currently with the music industry spending a disproportionate amount of energy on copy protection and the marketing of crap music, I am afraid I'll be waiting awhile yet.


Widget

some of the dance music outlets are moving this way..... not the big ones yet, but some of the smaller ones....

maybe sooner than you think (hopefully)

Thom
01-23-2007, 07:08 PM
Well, I don't have a Nak in the car and I DO like the ability to carry 4400 tracks (songs) with me on the road in very high quality sound. Does a CD sound better at home, sure - thats why I have them. Do I want to carry 300-400 CDs with me on a trip - no way! Am I going to put a grand or so into a high end car system to have that high end home sound with me on the road - no way!

See - no one is arguing that MP3 is top of the line sound with no limitations - but - add in a few simple requirements - like portability, and the MP3 very quickly becomes useful.

Regular CD tracks are around 1440kbps. From the previous posts here it sure sounds like everyone here that uses MP3s digitizes at a high quality rate like 320kbps. Its nice that iTunes and WinAmp and other CD "ripping" software allows you to choose the fidelity you want to have. Hey, thats like setting the tape speed on those old RR decks - nobody that cared used 1 3/4 ips for QUALITY recordings, now did they?

I don't think anyone advocates using the iTunes store default rate of 128kbps. That was probably selected as a good compromise for the casual (non-critical) listener - the smaller filesize means a pretty quick download rate and allows more songs to be stored on a portable system.

Nothing is perfect - there is always a tradeoff - for most of the iPod users its the portability and ease of use.

First of all I own and have heard many CDs that are inferior to MP3 or AAC files, No.

so I cannot affirm your first assumption. I have around 2,500 CDs and 2,500 MP3 or AAC files, plus a handful (less than 130) SACDs and DVD-As and 500 LPs. I'm not one to believe that any format is inherently better than another, except for cassettes I guess.

Second, appreciation of music exists on many levels, and the majority of it is different than that sought by purists and audiophiles.

Third, in a market-driven economy, mainstream companies will be chasing the dollars, not the art or the science. Only as the art and/or the science creates dollars will companies pursue a particular level of musical appreciation.

Fourth, physical media is inconvenient and cumbersome, and given the chance, people will divest themselves of the burden.

Fifth, any technology created to replace physical media will chase the most profitable level of musical appreciation as soon as possible, which is the low- and middle-levels, where market share can be created and volume can be grown.

Sixth, if we want high-level musical appreciation to be served, we'd better appeal/request/demand it of those who will control the distribution and format of the nonphysical media.

Since "record" companies are too greedy and stupid to figure out how to do this, it falls to Bill Gates (not likely), Steve Jobs (likely) or another to bring about the genesis of the distribution system, the format, and the level of quality. They're the ones who need to bring the quality upstream, not the nimrods at a record label or two or a recording association. The download sites like eMusic, iTunes, Rhapsody, etc. already are serving the low and middle levels, and at least one is doing quite well. Now, how do those who want high level musical quality get it going forward?

My point was that a petition to save SACD probably won't be the answer to that question, though I support the activism behind it.
Titanium Dome is offline Report Post Reply With Quote



I was responding to this post. The impression I was getting was that he was complaining about not being able to get Mobile Fidelity (I didn't even know they had made the transition) and other "high resolution" media and then all of his listening was on Mp3.
He says it was a misunderstanding and perhaps it was but what I got from this was that he thought Mp3 could give higher resolution than CD.
I don't think there is an argument that when they figured out the compression for mp3 they seem to have done a pretty good job of it.
In posts further back I give all kinds of reasons people listen to mp3. But they don't do it for superior fidelity and that was either what he was saying or what it appeared he was saying and since the numbers so clearly prove different I was trying for an understanding. I have nothing against mp3's Otherwise a 4 gig player could hold between 4and 6 albums and that would be it.
I don't know why I have a 60 gig player but I do. It really seems a wast to record mp3's on it. It's like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it

louped garouv
01-24-2007, 02:23 PM
does your player support FLACs or OGG VOrbis?

hjames
01-24-2007, 02:31 PM
does your player support FLACs or OGG VOrbis?
Well - last FLACs I dloaded were huge ...

James Brown - Livin' in America - 33Megs as a FLAC - would be around 12 meg as a 320kbps mp3 maybe 6-8 megs as a 192kbps file (varies a bit depending on dynamics, complexity, etc).

That big a file is pretty large for portable players - more likely for for home use - but frankly - for home use I'd just play the CD and take no change, no compression, no losses.

louped garouv
01-24-2007, 02:54 PM
Yeah FLACs are big, but they are Lossless...



most ppl I run with use laptops for their digital audio.....

but if you have entirely too much room on your portable player, I don't see why not....

Hoerninger
03-26-2007, 02:32 PM
Just read this (link)::

Now, I can understand that the SACD 'marketeers' might want to downplay the SACD aspect to avoid confusing the unwashed masses who might be leery (for good reason) of incompatible/unplayable new disc formats. But given that there are also a fair number of SACD-savvy buyers who are interested in these releases specifically for their better sound quality, what is the logic in making it almost impossible to determine whether the product they're holding in their hands is an SACD disc at all?
(http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=19307808)
Obviously you have to look very thoroughly.
____________
Peter

DanMan
03-28-2007, 04:04 PM
One likes to believe in the freedom of music,
but glittering prizes and endless comprimises (mp3)
shatter the illusion of integrity.



sorry i had to throw that in there:p seeing as how this paramount SAVE SACD post got nearly totally hijacked by an all-out discussion on the technicalities of mp3.


dont get me wrong, i love my mp3's, they're great for my speakerphone, my laptop speakers, my NuTone intercom, jogging with the Iriver, and most especially with SRS WOW applied :blah:


... but this was a SACD post; the order of data for digital music goes something around like:


mp3: ~5mb/song
cd: ~50mb/song
sacd: ~ 500mb/song

deductive reasoning would indicate 'the next' format should be another X10 data or ~5,000mb/song.

we're still in the infant stages of digital sound reproduction... when compared to analog sound reproduction. just cause its glittering doesnt mean its better.... :D


the import here (in this thread) is not how LITTLE information your music has but how MUCH information your music has.


when it comes to digital sampling of analog sound, more will always be better... IMHO.



No Comprimises.


Here's a good link to help make quality purchasing decisions:
http://www.sa-cd.net/
4439 SA-CD titles : 4280 Reviews

X_X
03-28-2007, 05:23 PM
The few (4) choice MFSL Gold CD's I own, combined with a few quality 20bit remastered HDCD's (11), the large lot of SACD's (5), and the wall of vinyl (many hundreds) will get me through these tough times you people speak of. And yes, I still have a reel to reel and a cassette deck. I also have an iPod. If my favorite artists where available on 8track- I'd have one of those damned things, too.

Sony, Phillips, and whomever can play top dollar market share games for all eternity for all I care. I buy the music I like from the artists I like. When it happened to be only available on SACD- I bought a SACD player. It was and still is amazing. That doesn't make me want to throw out my other source components because I have found the holy grail! I will never hold a petition for a format and hope the industry gets the artists I like. Which came first- the music or format wars!?

For the record, my trusty old Muddy Waters- Folk Singer on MFSL Gold is still the "go-to" piece of music I own on any format. Granted, my redbook player is far better than my entry level SACD player.

Nate.

DanMan
03-28-2007, 07:33 PM
i think thats the jist of true competition, which we capitalist pigs were partially founded on and still thrive on...

maybe we can call them "format competitions", rather than "formats wars"?

ever wonder why we have accepted to be socialized to believe we always need to have a "war on _____"? (and its usually our favourite things for some reason)

this war stuff's gonna "kill us all".. i tell ya :biting:

i think its great to have been born and raised with computers. and interesting to see music get digitized.

you have 20% more sacd's than i do :) . i only have 4. one is soo bad it turned me off of a band I used to like; another is soo good its changed my way of thinking about stereophonic sound...

you dont have to take the good with the bad, weed it out through judicious searching and spending habits - seems like that was the common denominator (in this thread) to helping "better" to come "faster".