The future of music formats
02 July 2004, 04:28 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future of music formats
Anybody got any views on any of these?
Do we reckon CDs will be around for years to come, or will storing your collection on a hard-drive be the way forward?
Is downloaded music as high quality as that on a shop-bought CD?
Will SACD overtake CD as the premium source?
Do we reckon CDs will be around for years to come, or will storing your collection on a hard-drive be the way forward?
Is downloaded music as high quality as that on a shop-bought CD?
Will SACD overtake CD as the premium source?
Last edited by TelBoy; 03 July 2004 at 12:02 PM.
02 July 2004, 04:46 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The purists said that vinyl always sounded better than CD. Look what happened to it.
Personally, I think it'll go to hard drive, just for convenience. Like a phone belongs to the person not to the property, your music collection should be with you, not with your house. On an Ipod/Zen it can go to the car, the gym, your mate's, the party... You don't need infinite tunes, but as storage space increases you can get higher quality, so that argument will diminish.
I'll leave it to the DJs and audiophiles to give their PsOV, but that's mine as a consumer.
BTW, I reckon DVDs will die pretty quickly too, as it will all be downloadable.
Personally, I think it'll go to hard drive, just for convenience. Like a phone belongs to the person not to the property, your music collection should be with you, not with your house. On an Ipod/Zen it can go to the car, the gym, your mate's, the party... You don't need infinite tunes, but as storage space increases you can get higher quality, so that argument will diminish.
I'll leave it to the DJs and audiophiles to give their PsOV, but that's mine as a consumer.
BTW, I reckon DVDs will die pretty quickly too, as it will all be downloadable.
02 July 2004, 05:00 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Anybody got any views on any of these?
Do we reckon CDs will be around for years to come, or will storing your collection on a hard-drive be the way forward?
Is downloaded music as that on a high quality as a shop-bought CD?
Will SACD overtake CD as the premium source?
Do we reckon CDs will be around for years to come, or will storing your collection on a hard-drive be the way forward?
Is downloaded music as that on a high quality as a shop-bought CD?
Will SACD overtake CD as the premium source?
i dont think that the cd or dvd formats will ever die. there are still people who swear by vinyl, eight track and the rest for playback, so they will live on for a while to come, purely for playback choice, but i do think that the CD-Maxi single or album with a bit of card shoved in it with a crap abstract photo you buy in woolwrths will be a thing of the past.
just wait till apple licences itunes to a retailer. you go in woolies, plug your device into the listening post and buy there and then. simple. everyone gets their money, everyones happy. we will all wonder what the arguement was about by this time next year. technology made simple.
what is interesting is whether apple and the likes of creative have the impetus to be bigger than sony or BMG and end up being one of the worlds largest companies by 2020. no-one will disagree that they have the worlds best designers.
easy, start buying shares now!!
PS has anyone found a P2P that is UK based? i get fed up of winmx, its perfectly powerful, but full of crap german/italian/american music. i vow lets get the UK filesharing
All my own 2p worth!!
02 July 2004, 05:10 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mars
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eight track's the future.
Nice one.Faire, you Texan ?
Digital it will be, 24/96 presumably (SACD) for the purists.
Brendan, vinyl *never* sounded better than CD, that's one of the big myths of our lifetime. 2" mastertape did, but vinyl ? That said, CD sounds pretty crap when you compare it to what was actually recorded in the studio.
Or are you asking "commercially" ? In that case, it seems people are deaf enough to appreciate mp3, and as long as it's "free", most people won't give a damn about SACD I'm afraid.
02 July 2004, 06:12 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: JFK/LHR
Posts: 3,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vinyl *never* sounded better than CD, that's one of the big myths of our lifetime. 2" mastertape did, but vinyl ?
Vinyl is a pure unbroken waveform unrestricted by sample rate or bit rate. technically and aurally it is better than CD. Fact.
As a dj i swear by vinyl- not a fan of cds (at least for work use), and mp3s? Pah- tripe.
Vinyl will remain as a pretty much only dj only product, as it is. Thats its niche market and i cant see it changing anytime soon- its used in conjunction with cd at the moment, but it has been for years.
Again, not a fan of digital downloads personally, but its taking off.
retail outlets that start offering instant downloads and purchasing will be popular, but thats some way off being widespread.
I think Cd will be around for a while tho.
Trending Topics
02 July 2004, 06:25 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
freak, i agree with you, that wholesome sound analog systems provide really do have the edge over an cd/mp3 technology, but then again, the old amps always made the sound "better" too, hands up if you kept your valve style Trio amp, even when the trend was for separate systems that were all the same height and shape
i also would hazard a guess you wear larger headphones when listening to your walkman, the sound doesnt compare to the **** you get from tiny in-ear headphones.
you cant beat a good old LED spectrum analyser either though??
all of the above made music sound like the rawness of the studio that it was created in. nowadays music is made on a bus or in an office therefore you need a crap format to play it on!!
the masses want simpleness and digital formats will prevail. i am happy about that, dont fight the power. let people buy their pap from argos, it keeps the world spinning. we can the be perveyors of junk stores and markets to find that elusive sound! worth doing in my book.
the next step will be billboards offering you bluettooth digital downloads if you are within 10m. hows about that for progress?
i also would hazard a guess you wear larger headphones when listening to your walkman, the sound doesnt compare to the **** you get from tiny in-ear headphones.
you cant beat a good old LED spectrum analyser either though??
all of the above made music sound like the rawness of the studio that it was created in. nowadays music is made on a bus or in an office therefore you need a crap format to play it on!!
the masses want simpleness and digital formats will prevail. i am happy about that, dont fight the power. let people buy their pap from argos, it keeps the world spinning. we can the be perveyors of junk stores and markets to find that elusive sound! worth doing in my book.
the next step will be billboards offering you bluettooth digital downloads if you are within 10m. hows about that for progress?
02 July 2004, 06:38 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mp3's, ipod, itune etc ways of listening to music are fine for convenience listerning but don't trouble any of the higher class hifi and audiophile newcomers.
As more and more people install multi-channel suround sytems at home and more players become multi format I can see DVD-A and SACD being more common as well as niche formats like DTS 96/24.
The high compression formats will never replace the quality formats.
I think the industry will have to make room for both the high quality formats and the download convenience formats.
Cheers
Lee
As more and more people install multi-channel suround sytems at home and more players become multi format I can see DVD-A and SACD being more common as well as niche formats like DTS 96/24.
The high compression formats will never replace the quality formats.
I think the industry will have to make room for both the high quality formats and the download convenience formats.
Cheers
Lee
02 July 2004, 06:52 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mars
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vinyl is a pure unbroken waveform unrestricted by sample rate or bit rate. technically and aurally it is better than CD. Fact.
Erm... pssht, a bit of inside advice... talk to a few pros... in recording, not in DJ "I wished I could play or record music myself" circles. Talk to a few mastering guys, and what they had to do to prevent the needle to jump up and down...
You seem to know better than peeps like say G. Massenburg...
Oh dear.
Then come back to me, humble pie at the ready.
Cheers
02 July 2004, 07:12 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im ashamed to say I have never ever, in 21 years, heard any material on vinyl.. apart from what ive probably unknowningly heard in clubs, and at shows - im intrigued now
02 July 2004, 07:12 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted somewhere else just a little time ago that audio has always been a convenience against quality equation and that is still the case, it is just that recently there has been more choice in both areas.
In the end what matters is that people enjoy their music and that they can enjoy it where and when they like.
It must be said though that it is most amusing to see people claiming that vinyl is the way to go, I assume this is a troll but to add to my amusement there was an advert at the bottom of the page for some Linn digital so called "hi-fi" gear. I remember way back when Linn wouldn't have anything to do with digits, like Neill Young they claimed that it chopped the audio up into little bits and that couldn't be good! Clearly their basic understanding of engineering was somewhat lacking. The local Linn dealer used to demonstrate the superiority of analogue over digital by playing some live material from Radio 3 and comparing it to a CD player. Now, this was in the early days of CD audio when the reconstruction filters in the players were very dodgy indeed and performance, specially in terms of phase, was interesting to say the least. Anyhow, this demonstration proved just how much better good old analogue was over the digits, so we were told. As with almost every statement I had heard made by a "hi-fi expert" rather than an engineer it was also based upon a high level of ignorance: Radio 3 was getting to the transmitter using the NICAM distribution circuits and so was 14 bit companded digital for most of its route across the country, thereby proving that analogue was better than digital we were told.
The bottom line is take your audio whatever way you enjoy it, but don't get caught up in someone elses dogma. Use your own ears, use your own judgement and decide what you like, you'll still be enjoying it by the time the experts have decided that they've changed their minds, again.
In the end what matters is that people enjoy their music and that they can enjoy it where and when they like.
It must be said though that it is most amusing to see people claiming that vinyl is the way to go, I assume this is a troll but to add to my amusement there was an advert at the bottom of the page for some Linn digital so called "hi-fi" gear. I remember way back when Linn wouldn't have anything to do with digits, like Neill Young they claimed that it chopped the audio up into little bits and that couldn't be good! Clearly their basic understanding of engineering was somewhat lacking. The local Linn dealer used to demonstrate the superiority of analogue over digital by playing some live material from Radio 3 and comparing it to a CD player. Now, this was in the early days of CD audio when the reconstruction filters in the players were very dodgy indeed and performance, specially in terms of phase, was interesting to say the least. Anyhow, this demonstration proved just how much better good old analogue was over the digits, so we were told. As with almost every statement I had heard made by a "hi-fi expert" rather than an engineer it was also based upon a high level of ignorance: Radio 3 was getting to the transmitter using the NICAM distribution circuits and so was 14 bit companded digital for most of its route across the country, thereby proving that analogue was better than digital we were told.
The bottom line is take your audio whatever way you enjoy it, but don't get caught up in someone elses dogma. Use your own ears, use your own judgement and decide what you like, you'll still be enjoying it by the time the experts have decided that they've changed their minds, again.
02 July 2004, 07:28 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SomeDude
ROFL ! Nice one.
Faire, you Texan ?
Nice one.Faire, you Texan ?
I was kidding about that but it seems as if Eight Track has come on since my day.
Modern Eight Track
02 July 2004, 08:32 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
I posted somewhere else just a little time ago that audio has always been a convenience against quality equation and that is still the case, it is just that recently there has been more choice in both areas.
In the end what matters is that people enjoy their music and that they can enjoy it where and when they like.
It must be said though that it is most amusing to see people claiming that vinyl is the way to go, I assume this is a troll but to add to my amusement there was an advert at the bottom of the page for some Linn digital so called "hi-fi" gear. I remember way back when Linn wouldn't have anything to do with digits, like Neill Young they claimed that it chopped the audio up into little bits and that couldn't be good! Clearly their basic understanding of engineering was somewhat lacking. The local Linn dealer used to demonstrate the superiority of analogue over digital by playing some live material from Radio 3 and comparing it to a CD player. Now, this was in the early days of CD audio when the reconstruction filters in the players were very dodgy indeed and performance, specially in terms of phase, was interesting to say the least. Anyhow, this demonstration proved just how much better good old analogue was over the digits, so we were told. As with almost every statement I had heard made by a "hi-fi expert" rather than an engineer it was also based upon a high level of ignorance: Radio 3 was getting to the transmitter using the NICAM distribution circuits and so was 14 bit companded digital for most of its route across the country, thereby proving that analogue was better than digital we were told.
The bottom line is take your audio whatever way you enjoy it, but don't get caught up in someone elses dogma. Use your own ears, use your own judgement and decide what you like, you'll still be enjoying it by the time the experts have decided that they've changed their minds, again.
In the end what matters is that people enjoy their music and that they can enjoy it where and when they like.
It must be said though that it is most amusing to see people claiming that vinyl is the way to go, I assume this is a troll but to add to my amusement there was an advert at the bottom of the page for some Linn digital so called "hi-fi" gear. I remember way back when Linn wouldn't have anything to do with digits, like Neill Young they claimed that it chopped the audio up into little bits and that couldn't be good! Clearly their basic understanding of engineering was somewhat lacking. The local Linn dealer used to demonstrate the superiority of analogue over digital by playing some live material from Radio 3 and comparing it to a CD player. Now, this was in the early days of CD audio when the reconstruction filters in the players were very dodgy indeed and performance, specially in terms of phase, was interesting to say the least. Anyhow, this demonstration proved just how much better good old analogue was over the digits, so we were told. As with almost every statement I had heard made by a "hi-fi expert" rather than an engineer it was also based upon a high level of ignorance: Radio 3 was getting to the transmitter using the NICAM distribution circuits and so was 14 bit companded digital for most of its route across the country, thereby proving that analogue was better than digital we were told.
The bottom line is take your audio whatever way you enjoy it, but don't get caught up in someone elses dogma. Use your own ears, use your own judgement and decide what you like, you'll still be enjoying it by the time the experts have decided that they've changed their minds, again.
quite right, sound advice. i nver was convinced that vinyl was better than anything else, but 100% sure that music sounded better if it had moving needle meters or an LED spectrum analyser!!
do people still put green pen round the outside of their cd's to make them sound better? does this work with dvd-a?
02 July 2004, 08:42 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Was Manc now Camden
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future lies with small form factor large capacity Lossless players. The success of the iPod has proved this is the way people want to go, all that is needed is the kind of sq that will have audiophiles buying them for more than just an MP3 player to listen to whilst out and about.
02 July 2004, 08:45 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i didnt think audiophiles went out and about, i thought they stayed in growing beards, listening to pink floyd on valve amps taking the **** out of people who use mp3's!!
is there a high quality version of an mp3?
is there a high quality version of an mp3?
Last edited by cactus jim; 02 July 2004 at 08:47 PM. Reason: to keep it on topic
02 July 2004, 08:49 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Was Manc now Camden
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No version of MP3 but there are Apple an MS versions
Apple - Better Really 
http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html
MS
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...ecs/audio.aspx
Apple - Better
Really http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html
MS
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...ecs/audio.aspx
02 July 2004, 09:16 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vinyl better than CD????
Well you can talk to whoever you want - recording engineers, djs's etc., but the proof of the pudding is in the listening (if you see what I mean).
I have a fairly good system at home and everyone who has listened to it has agreed that vinyl is at least as good as CD (on my system). Both sound great to me so that will do nicely.
It may surprise some of you, but vinyl replay engineering is actually quite advanced - just stay away from the midi system turntables - yuck!!!
MP3 etc. is great for music on the move when convenience counts over ultimate quality.
As for the future surely solid state has to be the way to go - no moving parts and all.
tiggers.
Well you can talk to whoever you want - recording engineers, djs's etc., but the proof of the pudding is in the listening (if you see what I mean).
I have a fairly good system at home and everyone who has listened to it has agreed that vinyl is at least as good as CD (on my system). Both sound great to me so that will do nicely.
It may surprise some of you, but vinyl replay engineering is actually quite advanced - just stay away from the midi system turntables - yuck!!!
MP3 etc. is great for music on the move when convenience counts over ultimate quality.
As for the future surely solid state has to be the way to go - no moving parts and all.
tiggers.
02 July 2004, 09:52 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I for one would live to see more music coming out on DVD-A and SACD. SACD especially is excellent quality (on my humble system anyway). Vinyl has been boxed up and stored in the attic.
I would expect the whole thing to go solid state in the future. As above, i.e. iTunes but on the street. You simply plug in your solid state device that will hold a couple of terabytes (technology already proven for a suger lump sized memory chip that holds 1 terabyte) into a booth or from your PC at home and pay/download/store tunes. Said soild state device will plug into amps at home, head units in cars and players in the walkman style etc.
Cheers
Ian
I would expect the whole thing to go solid state in the future. As above, i.e. iTunes but on the street. You simply plug in your solid state device that will hold a couple of terabytes (technology already proven for a suger lump sized memory chip that holds 1 terabyte) into a booth or from your PC at home and pay/download/store tunes. Said soild state device will plug into amps at home, head units in cars and players in the walkman style etc.
Cheers
Ian
02 July 2004, 11:37 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
OK I'll bite
Any digital format - ****e. Theoretically. Due to all these fromats taking clips/samples of the original signal. Albeit DVD is better (96KHz - 96,000 samples per second + 24Bit)
High-end digital is 192KHz - 192,000 samples per second. BUT, is STILL and representation of the original analogue signal.
Bearing in mind that CD is 'only' 44.1KHz (44,100 samples per second)
MP3 - TOTAL ****e. period. good for music on the move.
Minidisc - not bad due to having analogue sounding attributes due to ATRAC (Adaptive TRansfrom Acoustic Coding) - fools the brain
Vinyl - warm-sounding, but ****e noise quality.
Analogue tape (well 24-track 2" + Dolby SR - the fcukin best!!!
For home market, I think that DVD-A (or equivalent) will take off. Comparing DVD-A to CD is like listening to the DVD whilst wearing a crash helmet (CD), and then taking it off!!!
Also, due to the bigger storage format, more albums in DTS.
As for purchasing music, well, Apple have got the way forward (yes, I'm Mac biased).
Shame that all this effort and time (average song MIX takes about 18-24 continuous hours) is wasted when the song is
(a) crap
(b) played on a ****ebox CD stereo
Dan (works in the "biz" - technical side)
Any digital format - ****e. Theoretically. Due to all these fromats taking clips/samples of the original signal. Albeit DVD is better (96KHz - 96,000 samples per second + 24Bit)
High-end digital is 192KHz - 192,000 samples per second. BUT, is STILL and representation of the original analogue signal.
Bearing in mind that CD is 'only' 44.1KHz (44,100 samples per second)
MP3 - TOTAL ****e. period. good for music on the move.
Minidisc - not bad due to having analogue sounding attributes due to ATRAC (Adaptive TRansfrom Acoustic Coding) - fools the brain
Vinyl - warm-sounding, but ****e noise quality.
Analogue tape (well 24-track 2" + Dolby SR
- the fcukin best!!!For home market, I think that DVD-A (or equivalent) will take off. Comparing DVD-A to CD is like listening to the DVD whilst wearing a crash helmet (CD), and then taking it off!!!
Also, due to the bigger storage format, more albums in DTS.
As for purchasing music, well, Apple have got the way forward (yes, I'm Mac biased).
Shame that all this effort and time (average song MIX takes about 18-24 continuous hours) is wasted when the song is
(a) crap
(b) played on a ****ebox CD stereo
Dan (works in the "biz" - technical side
)
Last edited by ScoobyDoo555; 02 July 2004 at 11:40 PM. Reason: Comparison to cd now added
03 July 2004, 01:21 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to say that the comments above may reflect a slight lack of understanding of the operation of digital audio. If you are interested then it might be worthwhile to read John Watkinson's book "The Art of Digital Audio" there is an abridged version called something like "An Introduction to Digital Audio" that would probably do to start with. Even if you have just a passing interest get one from the library and give it a read, his discussion is excellent and his sense of humour is great.
Another worthwhile read is "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" by Brian Moore. It is accessable and extremely useful and should certainly be more widely read by audio professionals and those into "hi-fi."
The expressed concept that digital audio throws little bits of sound at your ears thereby making it theoretically ****e is certainly interesting but may predate the development of the DAC.
All recorded audio is merely a representation of the output of the transducer. Digital audio happens to be a very accurate way to achieve this and if you think that a 24 track analogue with a rack of Dolby is more accurate then I suspect there is some misunderstanding. For a start the Dolby system is merely a way to distort the audio to hide a noise problem inherent in the recording medium. Bias is a similar thing, for a different reason, and it's in that analogue tape equation as well.
Even my fave analogue 2 track recorders, Studer A80s, have a lot of non-linear stuff going on in there and actually have different bias and audio setups for different tape speeds. (Hence the number of physical boards in the front, there are physical boards for each speed) I'd guess, though to be honest have never thought to make the measurements to support this, that the drift in the alignment of a high end analogue 2 track over any given hour is probably greater in terms of audio distortion than all the possible combined distortions in a 16 bit 48kHz digital recording system.
All practical recording systems are band limited and so have a "cut off" frequency. In the real world digital systems can actually push this frequency beyond what an analogue system can record due to the physical limitations of the analogue system.
What people like is a matter of personal choice and different people like different things but if you want accurate sound then digital is the way to go. If you want to go for something that you personally consider to the "nice" that is fine but you'd be better to be accurate first and to make it "nice" later, that way those with a different view of "nice" can make it fit their ideal as well. If you make it "nice" at the record stage then everyone is stuck with your version of "nice" and has no point of reference.
Accurate gives you a fact, nice gives you an opinion.
Another worthwhile read is "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" by Brian Moore. It is accessable and extremely useful and should certainly be more widely read by audio professionals and those into "hi-fi."
The expressed concept that digital audio throws little bits of sound at your ears thereby making it theoretically ****e is certainly interesting but may predate the development of the DAC.
All recorded audio is merely a representation of the output of the transducer. Digital audio happens to be a very accurate way to achieve this and if you think that a 24 track analogue with a rack of Dolby is more accurate then I suspect there is some misunderstanding. For a start the Dolby system is merely a way to distort the audio to hide a noise problem inherent in the recording medium. Bias is a similar thing, for a different reason, and it's in that analogue tape equation as well.
Even my fave analogue 2 track recorders, Studer A80s, have a lot of non-linear stuff going on in there and actually have different bias and audio setups for different tape speeds. (Hence the number of physical boards in the front, there are physical boards for each speed) I'd guess, though to be honest have never thought to make the measurements to support this, that the drift in the alignment of a high end analogue 2 track over any given hour is probably greater in terms of audio distortion than all the possible combined distortions in a 16 bit 48kHz digital recording system.
All practical recording systems are band limited and so have a "cut off" frequency. In the real world digital systems can actually push this frequency beyond what an analogue system can record due to the physical limitations of the analogue system.
What people like is a matter of personal choice and different people like different things but if you want accurate sound then digital is the way to go. If you want to go for something that you personally consider to the "nice" that is fine but you'd be better to be accurate first and to make it "nice" later, that way those with a different view of "nice" can make it fit their ideal as well. If you make it "nice" at the record stage then everyone is stuck with your version of "nice" and has no point of reference.
Accurate gives you a fact, nice gives you an opinion.
03 July 2004, 01:34 AM
#24
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL you talk about all these different formats like the consumer gives a flying toss. I cannot tell the difference between a 192kbs mp3, cd or record and I doubt neither can 99% of the population. So all of you get off your 'im into my music' high horses and stop trying to show off.
03 July 2004, 05:28 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- think it's got more to do with the way the sound is presented, than how it is stored - whether it's vinyl, CD, iPod, eight track, DVD, blu-ray.
So my preference goes for DTS which is an awesome listening experience for audio - and would like to try headphones that claim to interpret DTS correctly
So my preference goes for DTS which is an awesome listening experience for audio - and would like to try headphones that claim to interpret DTS correctly
03 July 2004, 09:08 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by hedgehog
I've got to say that the comments above may reflect a slight lack of understanding of the operation of digital audio. If you are interested then it might be worthwhile to read John Watkinson's book "The Art of Digital Audio" there is an abridged version called something like "An Introduction to Digital Audio" that would probably do to start with. Even if you have just a passing interest get one from the library and give it a read, his discussion is excellent and his sense of humour is great.
Another worthwhile read is "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" by Brian Moore. It is accessable and extremely useful and should certainly be more widely read by audio professionals and those into "hi-fi.".
Another worthwhile read is "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" by Brian Moore. It is accessable and extremely useful and should certainly be more widely read by audio professionals and those into "hi-fi.".
[quote]The expressed concept that digital audio throws little bits of sound at your ears thereby making it theoretically ****e is certainly interesting but may predate the development of the DAC.[quote]
If we're being picky, it's the PCM process that occurs at the ADC stage (analogue to digital convertor).
All recorded audio is merely a representation of the output of the transducer. Digital audio happens to be a very accurate way to achieve this and
This is not digital-bashing. But it is by no means perfect yet. It's a convenient storage method that to most people sounds clearer than vinyl. I agree.
if you think that a 24 track analogue with a rack of Dolby is more accurate then I suspect there is some misunderstanding. For a start the Dolby system is merely a way to distort the audio to hide a noise problem inherent in the recording medium. Bias is a similar thing, for a different reason, and it's in that analogue tape equation as well.
Even my fave analogue 2 track recorders, Studer A80s, have a lot of non-linear stuff going on in there and actually have different bias and audio setups for different tape speeds. (Hence the number of physical boards in the front, there are physical boards for each speed) I'd guess, though to be honest have never thought to make the measurements to support this, that the drift in the alignment of a high end analogue 2 track over any given hour is probably greater in terms of audio distortion than all the possible combined distortions in a 16 bit 48kHz digital recording system.
) at college along with an Otari MTR90. Once setup, and maintained, they are pretty rock solid. The main factor is the heads. I've been using Dolby SR with MTR90s for the last 10 years (hooked to an SSL 
for those who want to know!
All practical recording systems are band limited and so have a "cut off" frequency. In the real world digital systems can actually push this frequency beyond what an analogue system can record due to the physical limitations of the analogue system.
) - record/convert a CD track into MP3 at a low rate. Then re-do it at the top-end rate. Look at the file sizes of the two. Then bear in mind that the CD can only hold up to 800 Meg. Quality is relative to storage size.
What people like is a matter of personal choice and different people like different things but if you want accurate sound then digital is the way to go. If you want to go for something that you personally consider to the "nice" that is fine but you'd be better to be accurate first and to make it "nice" later, that way those with a different view of "nice" can make it fit their ideal as well. If you make it "nice" at the record stage then everyone is stuck with your version of "nice" and has no point of reference.
Accurate gives you a fact, nice gives you an opinion.
Accurate gives you a fact, nice gives you an opinion.
The gist of KingRA's post was that most people couldn't give a toss. He's right. Most music is listened to on the radio, in the car or other "noisey" environment. You ask general public what they would prefer to listen to music on. Most would either say CD (on a ghetto blaster @ work) or cassette
Makes the hours I put into mixes (on average 18-20 continuous) - painstakingly deciding whether instruments are loud enough/whether it' mixed right SO worthwhile!
Hedgehog, mind if I ask what you do (specialist area, you see - not many of us around!!!)
Dan
PS my responses in brackets area for those who need the "gaps filling in"
Last edited by ScoobyDoo555; 03 July 2004 at 09:11 AM. Reason: poor spollung!!
03 July 2004, 09:19 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
However, sorry to hijack the thread!! The future formats I would like to think will be Hard-disk based. That way, the sampling frequencies can be upped dramatically (might "fool" us into thinking it's any good! ), lappy HDs are getting smaller and cheaper too.
I would love for the car stereo to have a wireless LAN network ability - imagine it. Upload the tunes from your PC/Mac HD straight to the car HD You'd never have to worry about stolen CDs etc again. All those times where your partner's taken you fav CD to listen to in the car, and it comes back like it's been brillo-padded!!!
One day, maybe....
Dan
The future formats I would like to think will be Hard-disk based. That way, the sampling frequencies can be upped dramatically (might "fool" us into thinking it's any good! ), lappy HDs are getting smaller and cheaper too.I would love for the car stereo to have a wireless LAN network ability - imagine it. Upload the tunes from your PC/Mac HD straight to the car HD
You'd never have to worry about stolen CDs etc again. All those times where your partner's taken you fav CD to listen to in the car, and it comes back like it's been brillo-padded!!! One day, maybe....
Dan
03 July 2004, 09:28 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think the current formats will persist for long enough. e.g., look at the market in s/h vinyl. it's massive, and most of the material hasn't been manufactured for 20 or more years. if they stopped making cds tomorrow, the same would be true. about 90% of my vinyl records were/are purchased s/h.
i think, for convenience, many low end consumers will be going down the ipod/hard disk type route. many people either don't have space or can't be bothered with thousands of cds/albums cluttering up their house. in fact, many people don't care to have that much music available to them in any case. the latest cr*p american child star will do them fine. and after a couple of weeks they will probably never listen to it again, in any case.
tbh, if i had time and could be bothered, i would quite like to have a hard disc with all my records on it. if they were convereted at a decent rate, the sound would be pretty good. it would be loads more convenient for parties. the risks in searching for and playing vinyl at the end of a long night increase exponentially.
as for other "hard" formats,; afaict there isn't sufficinet momentum behind the newer formats to allow one to treally dominate the market in the way that cd has. if either dvd-a or sacd emerges as the contenter, i suppose it could gradually gain significant market share, but i don't see everyone rushing out to update their players for these formats. look what happened to mini disc. it just wasn't sufficiently "better" or "different" to cd.
jeez - what a ramble. and all that with a hangover.
i think, for convenience, many low end
consumers will be going down the ipod/hard disk type route. many people either don't have space or can't be bothered with thousands of cds/albums cluttering up their house. in fact, many people don't care to have that much music available to them in any case. the latest cr*p american child star will do them fine. and after a couple of weeks they will probably never listen to it again, in any case.tbh, if i had time and could be bothered, i would quite like to have a hard disc with all my records on it. if they were convereted at a decent rate, the sound would be pretty good. it would be loads more convenient for parties. the risks in searching for and playing vinyl at the end of a long night increase exponentially.
as for other "hard" formats,; afaict there isn't sufficinet momentum behind the newer formats to allow one to treally dominate the market in the way that cd has. if either dvd-a or sacd emerges as the contenter, i suppose it could gradually gain significant market share, but i don't see everyone rushing out to update their players for these formats. look what happened to mini disc. it just wasn't sufficiently "better" or "different" to cd.
jeez - what a ramble. and all that with a hangover.
03 July 2004, 09:58 AM
#30
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When theres eventually a country wide high speed wireless network will we have wireless stereos in the car to tune into internet radio stations and perhaps the ability stream music from our pcs at home??