Is the 'industry' blowing it, yet again?

[3db]

3db - You make it sound as though we've gone as far as we can with this. I dunno, I'd like to think that this hobby has a little more gas left in the tank, and the industry has a little more work to do in getting us closer to the event.


DJ

Both of these formats are considered lossless and thats as high res as one can get. Where do you go from lossless and maintain integrity? *shrugs* I don't really know.

 

[djreef]

Both of these formats are considered lossless and thats as high res as one can get. Where do you go from lossless and maintain integrity? *shrugs* I don't really know.

I don't really know either. I guess that's for bigger minds to decide. I would like to think/hope that maybe some of those bigger minds are working on that very problem as we type.

DJ

 

[dobyblue]

What new version of An Innocent Man is there?
Blu-spec isn't high resolution, it's the same old tired CD format burned by a blue laser to be more accurate. It's still 16-bit/44.1kHz at the end of the day.

There is definitely more to come in this avenue and one need only look at Neil Young's Archives Vol. 1 to see what's possible.

If Pearl Jam had included a Blu-ray of "Ten" with high resolution 24/192 stereo and 5.1 mixes as well as high rez mixes of the unplugged show along with interactive singles by region of that album, interviews, a live performance or two, etc., etc., all on one disc it would have been even easier to purchase. I still got it because of the 4 vinyl's included, but there's definitely a long way to go.

Another year or two once Blu-ray is more entrenched as a video format and I think you'll see the big four making a push to start issuing albums on Blu-ray with lots of extra features. It needs to appease the audiophile, the videophile, the casual consumer, the consumer who wants a digital CD copy included, no double dipping (BD-Live), etc., etc.

A huge opportunity looms ahead, I hope they don't meat it up. In the meantime there's craploads of vinyl to keep my ears happy in the interim thanks to the SACD/DVD-A format war cocking that one up.

 

[TLS Guy]

No doubt. I just wish we could get a 2 channel solution to hi-rez at a decent price point that would be inclusive to everyone. Of course, I'm biased because I have a dedicated 2 channel rig, but still......

DJ

Why isn't CD high enough res for two channel? It has adequate dynamic range and frequency response. The major advantage of those other formats is the ability to have more than two channels. That applies to old recordings also. The three channel Mercury Living presence form the 50s are a revelation, as are the four channel recording from the Philips catalog on Pentatone.

I do think you could make a case for having one disc format though and making it Blue Ray. That would make a lot of sense.

 

[TLS Guy]

I can see it working if it becomes a standard rather than a separate world like SACD, but unfortunately it arrives at a time where audiophiles are an isolated, cranky bunch and most of the music market is more concerned with convenience and portability and doesn't spend much or any time sitting quietly in the "sweet spot" of an expensive and massive audio system. As such it will just be a replacement for other hi-res digital formats like DVD-A or SACD. I also doubt that it will replace vinyl since grooved disks have such a quasi-religious following. Vinyl-philes seem to favor that anachonistic technology BECAUSE it's anachronistic.

You got that right! I posted this on another thread today.

 

[TLS Guy]

3db - You make it sound as though we've gone as far as we can with this. I dunno, I'd like to think that this hobby has a little more gas left in the tank, and the industry has a little more work to do in getting us closer to the event.
DJ

I agree with 3db, CD is adequate for two channel. To get you nearer the event takes more channels, and perish the thought enough channels to give height information.

 

[skizzerflake]

Why isn't CD high enough res for two channel? It has adequate dynamic range and frequency response. The major advantage of those other formats is the ability to have more than two channels. That applies to old recordings also. The three channel Mercury Living presence form the 50s are a revelation, as are the four channel recording from the Philips catalog on Pentatone.

I do think you could make a case for having one disc format though and making it Blue Ray. That would make a lot of sense.

The CD format was invented in the infancy of chip electronics and was a compromise between sampling rate and disc time and manufacturing capability. Dynamics and response are adequate, but fine detail is lacking for careful listeners on expensive systems. The better formats sound better not only on multi-channel recordings but also on 2 channel. From my experience, however, any of the hi-rez digital formats are good enough for my ears. There isn't much to be said for yet another. Blu ray would also be fine for this, but I do have to wonder why I would want yet another disc format when audiophiles already have so many and so few people actually listen to sound quality. I guess it makes a case for the new Oppo player that will do anything.

 

[TLS Guy]

The CD format was invented in the infancy of chip electronics and was a compromise between sampling rate and disc time and manufacturing capability. Dynamics and response are adequate, but fine detail is lacking for careful listeners on expensive systems. The better formats sound better not only on multi-channel recordings but also on 2 channel. From my experience, however, any of the hi-rez digital formats are good enough for my ears. There isn't much to be said for yet another. Blu ray would also be fine for this, but I do have to wonder why I would want yet another disc format when audiophiles already have so many and so few people actually listen to sound quality. I guess it makes a case for the new Oppo player that will do anything.

It may have been the infancy of the chip era, but Phillips and Sony did an outstanding job. There is nothing wrong with the code. In fact it benefited from advances in DAC and ADC design. The fact is that it has adequate dynamic range for all but the most gigantic of classical scores. Frequency response is adequate. So yes the detail is there if the recoding chain and reproducing chain can make use of it.

AES published a carefully blinded study between CD and SACD last September. There was no statistical difference, and that does not surprise me. I do think however that companies that record and produce SACDs take a lot more care in the whole production. I have been able to compare the formats here and at my friends house using B & W 800 Ds. I assure you the CD when recorded and properly played back is superb.

The real advantage of the newer formats is that they support more channels.
And as I have said before, most people listening to their SACDs are not listening to DSD, but PCM. The reason, you can not do signal processing in DSD. So if you are able to do bass management and speaker level matching while listening to an SACD, you are effectively getting CD quality reproduction.

To properly asses DSD you have to go to the players menu and output the DSD decoder to the analog ports. Then you have to use DIY skills to balance the channels and do bass management in the analog domain. That is what I do. Even receivers that have DSD decoders convert to PCM so you have channel balance and bass management.

 

[WmAx]

The CD format was invented in the infancy of chip electronics and was a compromise between sampling rate and disc time and manufacturing capability. Dynamics and response are adequate, but fine detail is lacking for careful listeners on expensive systems.

I can cite credited research that shows such statements to be no more than pure fiction. CD format is completely transparent to humans is the ONLY conclusion that can be made from careful control blind studies. Don't confuse different masters used on different formats with different formats.

-Chris

 

[dobyblue]

To properly asses DSD you have to go to the players menu and output the DSD decoder to the analog ports. Then you have to use DIY skills to balance the channels and do bass management in the analog domain. That is what I do. Even receivers that have DSD decoders convert to PCM so you have channel balance and bass management.

If it is recorded properly then I don't see why you would need channel balance and bass management if your speakers are set up correctly.

I output DSD natively and my receiver processes DSD>Analog without ever hitting the PCM realm and I do appreciate the difference in sound. There are plenty of receivers out there that give you the option to go from DSD>Analog without DSP processing or decimation to PCM.

Here's Denon's 4308CI:

Here's Onkyo's TX-SR905:

However I disagree that changing to PCM brings you down to CD quality because most DSD>PCM processing decimates to 24/88.2 (or 24/176.4 in the SACD-capable PS3 models) not 16/44.1.

I agree that CD has far more potential than it does now. The mastering and production stages have both squeezed the dynamic and life out of so many recordings thanks to far too much gain and drc. However I do think that CD has shortcomings as a format and I think Bob @ Meridian outlined it pretty well.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF

CONCLUSIONS
This article has reviewed the issues surrounding the transmission of high-resolution digital audio. It is suggested that a channel that attains audible transparency will be equivalent to a PCM channel that uses:

• 58kHz sampling rate, and
• 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping, or
• 20-bit representation in a flat noise floor, i.e. a ‘rectangular’ channel

This conclusion has the following obvious implications:

• The CD channel with 44.1kHz 16-bit coding (even with noise shaping to extend the resolution) is inadequate
• Even 48kHz sampling is not quite high enough
• Sampling at 88.2kHz or 96kHz is too high, and therefore wasteful of data
• The use of sampling rates above 96kHz to convey a wider audio bandwidth cannot currently be justified

Bad CD? - Most of Oasis' releases
Good CD? - The Stone Roses debut album

They're night and day...but having also acquired a mint copy of The Stone Roses on vinyl I can tell you that it does sound better even that that GOOD CD and makes me yearn for a Blu-ray release of said album. Why Blu-ray? Because the major labels for all intents and purposes are done with SACD and DVD-Audio and for a new format to gain any ground it has to appease all markets, not just the audiophiles. Blu-ray with its HD video capabilities, interactivity, BD Live, HD audio, etc., etc., add in a CD for digital copy and you've pretty much got every market from the mass to the niche nailed.

 

[djreef]

The CD format was invented in the infancy of chip electronics and was a compromise between sampling rate and disc time and manufacturing capability. Dynamics and response are adequate, but fine detail is lacking for careful listeners on expensive systems. The better formats sound better not only on multi-channel recordings but also on 2 channel. From my experience, however, any of the hi-rez digital formats are good enough for my ears. There isn't much to be said for yet another. Blu ray would also be fine for this, but I do have to wonder why I would want yet another disc format when audiophiles already have so many and so few people actually listen to sound quality. I guess it makes a case for the new Oppo player that will do anything.

Exactly. While I have far from a reference system the one I do have is quite revealing. And though it is true that it is very difficult to distinguish differences between 2 channel 16 bit and hi rez on older recordings, I can without question hear differences on newer recordings. This is where I believe the industry is screwing up. I am not interested in picking up yet another copy of this, or that. I want the guys making the decisions to take this into the studio, and bring us to the next level with current recordings. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a repeated pattern of failure here. I think we all know what the definition of insanity is......


DJ

 

[TLS Guy]

If it is recorded properly then I don't see why you would need channel balance and bass management if your speakers are set up correctly.

I output DSD natively and my receiver processes DSD>Analog without ever hitting the PCM realm and I do appreciate the difference in sound. There are plenty of receivers out there that give you the option to go from DSD>Analog without DSP processing or decimation to PCM.

Here's Denon's 4308CI:

Here's Onkyo's TX-SR905:

However I disagree that changing to PCM brings you down to CD quality because most DSD>PCM processing decimates to 24/88.2 (or 24/176.4 in the SACD-capable PS3 models) not 16/44.1.

I agree that CD has far more potential than it does now. The mastering and production stages have both squeezed the dynamic and life out of so many recordings thanks to far too much gain and drc. However I do think that CD has shortcomings as a format and I think Bob @ Meridian outlined it pretty well.

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF



Bad CD? - Most of Oasis' releases
Good CD? - The Stone Roses debut album

They're night and day...but having also acquired a mint copy of The Stone Roses on vinyl I can tell you that it does sound better even that that GOOD CD and makes me yearn for a Blu-ray release of said album. Why Blu-ray? Because the major labels for all intents and purposes are done with SACD and DVD-Audio and for a new format to gain any ground it has to appease all markets, not just the audiophiles. Blu-ray with its HD video capabilities, interactivity, BD Live, HD audio, etc., etc., add in a CD for digital copy and you've pretty much got every market from the mass to the niche nailed.

Unless all your speakers have identical sensitivity you have to level match. also classical SACDs, do not have a sub channel so you have to create one.

 

[krabapple]

I can't tell you how many times I got sucked into buying a "re-master" of classic album from the 80s or 90s that sounded worse than the original CD release b/c of over-EQing or hyper compression. Even the stuff being re-released as SACD 5.1 such as most of the Genesis catalog sounds horrific to put it kindly.

The Genesis catalog was remixed for two-channel as well as remastered, so that's an unusual case.

I think some of the 5.1 mixes sound great; the 2-channel remixes, not so much.

(And I learned long ago that SACD and DVD-A are no guarantee of 'audiophile' mastering)

 

[MidnightSensi]

The Genesis catalog was remixed for two-channel as well as remastered, so that's an unusual case.

I think some of the 5.1 mixes sound great; the 2-channel remixes, not so much.

(And I learned long ago that SACD and DVD-A are no guarantee of 'audiophile' mastering)

Some of this is because these formats allow for running everything on the rails.

Like you said, there are some good masters of the high-def formats and some bad ones.

The reason I think some people feel that vinyl sounds best isn't because of the format, its because if vinyl was mastered like some of this new music is the needle wouldn't stay on. Dynamics are really a requirement of vinyl in some degree, otherwise the needle doesn't have a path. I think that is part of it, anyways.

I find this a lot DJing. DJs will say that vinyl can go "louder" than the CD and some people like it for that reason. It's not that the format is "louder" though ... there is a lurking variable... it just sounds better and louder because the system has a chance to catch its breath between the peaks. It's a headroom issue. In the studio where they were at moderate levels it didn't matter, but at what nightclub spl levels are at today the power requirements are huge and it starts to be noticable.

A properly mastered high-def format sounds spectacular.

 

[Geno]

I like TLS Guy's assessment on multi-channel. I bought into SACD/DVD-A and have a good sized collection of both, and lately I've bought a few Blu-Ray concerts. I'm an advocate of good multi-channel audio in any format, and consider the experience far superior to 2-ch listening. The addition of HD video to go with lossless multi-channel audio is the Holy Grail of home entertainment, IMHO.
The BD concerts I've gotten so far have been just plain outstanding.

 

[WmAx]

With common room acoustics and speaker radiation patterns, multi-channel will be extremely useful in every type of sound reproduction scenario, if the multi-channel data is properly produced. That's a big if.

For re-creating live type music (classical, jazz,etc.), the proper stereo system can sound extraordinarily realistic in every way - with the only single fault perceptively being a slight lack of delayed echo from the rear (which you get a larger degree in real performances). But such stereo systems are rare, as they require radical room acoustics and unusual speakers of very high quality and a specific radiation pattern. This of course requires a dedicated room. A proper surround sound system and recording, however, can re-create this effect with much less effort, though you still need extremely high grade speakers.

-Chris

 

[djreef]

With common room acoustics and speaker radiation patterns, multi-channel will be extremely useful in every type of sound reproduction scenario, if the multi-channel data is properly produced. That's a big if.

For re-creating live type music (classical, jazz,etc.), the proper stereo system can sound extraordinarily realistic in every way - with the only single fault perceptively being a slight lack of delayed echo from the rear (which you get a larger degree in real performances). But such stereo systems are rare, as they require radical room acoustics and unusual speakers of very high quality and a specific radiation pattern. This of course requires a dedicated room. A proper surround sound system and recording, however, can re-create this effect with much less effort, though you still need extremely high grade speakers.

-Chris

Exactly, which is prob why I am pushing so hard for this. I now, have a rig that can take advantage of this, so admittedly, my concerns are selfish. I want the best that the 'industry' can do, because I know that it's possible. I just want them to stop outsmarting themselves and step up to the plate. Make it happen - let's do it. Quit messing around, take the next step. In times as bad as these, we shouldn't have to compromise. Give us the best - work for it like we have to.

DJ