PETITION TO SAVE SACD

[Titanium Dome]

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]

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]

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]

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/s...land+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:


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]

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]

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]

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]

does your player support FLACs or OGG VOrbis?

[hjames]

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]

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]

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?

Obviously you have to look very thoroughly.
____________
Peter

[DanMan]

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 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

... 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....

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]

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]

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

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".