|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.111.142.31
In Reply to: RE: Digital improving -final posted by J. Phelan on April 12, 2016 at 12:46:21
Hi,
> Servo-shake (optical drive). This induced current-spikes from
> the power supply. So, a distortion already, which was then
> modulated by vibrations. A perfect case of IM distortion.
Actually, having the audio supply rails also supply the Servos is very rare in any CD-Player I have come across I saw this precisely one time in a super low budget piece.
The problem tended to be that the same power supply powered the servos, the various decoder logic chips and the Clock.
So servo activity modulated the PSU lines (and ground) which directly translated into jitter. Old school CMOS logic has up to 50pS/1mV conversion of PSU noise into jitter. Modern high speed CMOS logic improves this by a factor 10 - 20.
Hence the actual problem resulting from "servo shakes" was jitter. It is pretty easily cured.
> Power supply noise. Magnetics are hard to shield, unlike
> electrostatics. Ripple in the audible spectrum -in (2)
> different places.
First, magnetic fields are easy to shield. Back when Casette decks and reel-2-reel machines many had magnetically shielded transformers.
Second, you will have a rich spectrum of harmonics, due to the rectification which modulates the magnetic field, not just two frequencies.
> Op-amp feedback. There are (2) main types of converters
> -commercial chips and R2Rs.
Actually, there are three fundamental types - Multibit (PCM), Single Bit (Delta Sigma/DSD) and hybrid DAC's that combine Multibit and Single Bit techniques.
> But they both use op-amps, which use feedback.
It is not necessary to use Op-Amp's, there were many early examples of different approaches.
Feedback is also not at issue (or rather a separate different issue), the issue is slewing in the Op-Amp due to too low "speed". This is trivial to fix, specify an Op-Amp that is fast enough and quiet enough.
> Co. are exploring "feed-forward" circuits that eliminate this.
Not sure you understand what "feed forward" here may signify.
> Clock noise. Coming from oscillators and quartz-crystal resonators.
> Co. are now making (on-board) custom clocks, to reduce this.
You could be referring to phase noise and/or spurs.
> "Jitter" applies here -but this was actually noise, not timing
> imperfections, that did the damage.
Incorrect, the clock's phase noise and spuria is Jitter and it impacts the AD or DA conversion - with any number of issues.
Many 1980's CD-Players and DAC's were excellent in terms of clock implementations and other features.
> Noisy current-to-voltage converter.
Not all DAC's need "Current to Voltage converters". Using appropriate Op-Amp's here (or other circuitry) deals effectively with noise using fairly normal regulators.
> DACs were not laser-trimmed. For 16-bit converters, we had 10-13 bit
> resolution. Some "crown" versions were out and these solved the
> problem.
This is incorrect. The Philips DAC's for mainstream players used something called "Dynamic Element Matching" or in later options "Continuous Calibration". Both techniques eliminate the need for laser trimming and these DAC's do deliver the full dynamic range of 16 Bit PCM, if implemented correctly.
Some extreme "low budget" DAC's indeed are limited around 12...13 Bit equivalent dynamic range, mainly due to high THD & N at high recording levels, their SNR is ok for CD standard Audio.
> Linear-phase filtering. This (apparently) had rounding-errors and
> pre-ringing. "Apodizing" came in, but was not accepted by all
> working in digital. Co. use minimum-phase filtering -or, are even
> "downsampling".
You seem to be unaware what these terms actually mean.
An Apodising filter is one that cuts off earlier than the so-called "half band filter" (e.g. at a lower frequency than 1/2 of the sample rate).
An Apodising filter may be Linear Phase, Minimum Phase or mixed, it could even be implemented as analogue filter.
The issue with linear phase digital filters generally is not (IMNSHO) the rounding errors in themselves (even done at 64 Bit resolution these filters have the same "sound"), but rather the non-causal time-domain behaviour.
I have never heard of anyone applying downsampling in a CD-Player or DAC, it like totally makes no sense whatsoever.
> But 16/44 never should have been attacked, being we couldn't hear
> its potential !!
Many of the true top end machines of the 80's (e.g. Philips LHH1000/Marantz CD/DA-12) where perfectly capable of delivering the potential CD had.
CD is just a trifle to slow and too low resolution. I can easily hear the benefits of going from a 16 Bit/44.1kHz recording system to one at 24 Bit 88.2 or 176.4kHz.
Had CD been standardised with a 64kHz sample rate and 18 Bits I doubt there would have been much to criticise. As it is, CD was just a trifle "not good enough".
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Follow Ups:
Nothing you said invalidates my points, except one..One, CDs, as manufactured, were far from perfect. Hence the improvements heard by burning to CDR (gold ones were better) or using optical treatments (like Optrix). Hard-disk also made improvements over CD-drives. All of these point to problems with read-in. More power supplies help, but the problem still persists.
Any modern-engineer working with magnetics will tell you they're not easy to shield ! Benchmark engineers gave a seminar at RMAF that mentioned this. And this is one reason they're using a switch-mode power supply. As many are, in high-end today.
Feedback might very well be an issue -as reported by engineers working today. Ayre, DarTZeel and Hegel claim it and I believe it. Hegel's HD30 DAC is showing the way -look at those measurements !! (U.K. reviews). And in these reviews, they discuss "downsampling". Do some reading.
Jitter creates -unwanted signals- in the chain -quite different from the standard definition. It was not "timing" -clocks are extremely accurate !!
The "rounding errors" were discussed by American engineers, in several interviews. With many co. opting not to use "apodizing", they may be right.
I will remove the point about laser-trimming. Although it appears that many DACs were not reaching their potential, as you noted. But I replaced it with a new point.
About half-way down, on "jitter":
Edits: 04/13/16 04/13/16 04/13/16 04/13/16 04/13/16 04/13/16
Hi,
> One, CDs, as manufactured, were far from perfect.
> Hence the improvements heard by burning to CDR
> (gold ones were better) or using optical treatments
> (like Optrix).
Again, it is crucial to understand the how and why all these things make an impact.
> Hard-disk also made improvements over CD-drives.
Not really. Head over to the computer audio asylum if you don't believe me.
> All of these point to problems with read-in.
> More power supplies help, but the problem still persists.
Unless CD's are badly mangled, the "read-in" is bit-accurate.
The problem is crosstalk via power supplies. How do I know? I designed a CD-Player that was impervious to "burning CD's to CDR" and Optrix etc... And yes, the trick is power supplies - solely - separating power supplies as much as possible.
> Any modern-engineer working with magnetics will tell you they're
> not easy to shield !
Then these "any modern-engineer" should all be fired to the last man.
In the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's Magnetic components were easy to shield. In fact they still are as easy to shield today. I implemented shielded mains transformers in HiFi gear in the 2000's. It is not only possible, but also cheap, relatively speaking, but it is not free.
These days I work with magnetic components for high frequency power supplies and guess you what - they are also shielded, from the factory. Yes, they cost a few cent more than unshielded types, but they are readily available off the page.
> Feedback might very well be an issue -as reported by engineers
> working today. Ayre, DarTZeel and Hegel claim it and I believe it.
I have been using "non-nfb" circuitry for ages. Also circuitry with feedback. Both can be made to work well, you just have to understand the requirements of the circuit.
I will decline to comment on specific products or brands...
> And in these reviews, they discuss "downsampling". Do some reading.
I have. These reviews discuss using Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion (ASRC), with the output sample rate set to or near 96kHz. And it is an old hat, a specific Pro-audio DAC resampled everything to 100kHz as of appx. 2005. Others like it were fairly common at the time, even in super cheap DAC's there was an ASRC. The manufacturers just forgot to claim downsampling as feature...
This may be because for CD standard Audio you get UPSAMPLING, not downsampling. Yes, with 176.4kHz and 192kHz you get downsampling - doing that if you have 768kHz capable DAC should probably be considered the same sort of thing as putting antifreeze into wine.
Personally I cannot say I am a great fan of ASRC and prefer any Audio Format to be rendered with as little digital processing as possible (which would be non).
Seems the UPSAMPLING/ASRC craze of the early 'oughties is doing a second coming, this time called DOWNSAMPLING, because by now we all know "upsampling = bad".
> Jitter creates -unwanted signals- in the chain
Generally Jitter does NOT create any direct signals that are independent of the actual signal. If you play digital silence there is no erroneous signal created by jitter. It creates increased noise with signal and added distortion, mostly of the IMD type.
> It was not "timing" -clocks are extremely accurate !!
Clocks of any kind have many imperfections. The ones commonly found even in so-called super-clocks are neither very accurate long term (this is called wander), short term (this is called jitter) or in an absolute sense (clock frequency), if compared (say) to a Stanford PRS-10.
> The "rounding errors" were discussed by American engineers,
> in several interviews.
This does not make it true or relevant.
If a digital filter is 24 Bit and it's design is competent (a supposition that I will agree may not automatically assumed to be true) the rounding errors will be in 24th bit, or, as no-one has made a 144dB dynamic range DAC in the DAC's noise-floor.
Even if someone made such a DAC, the rounding error would drown in microphone noise of the recording
> With many co. opting not to use "apodizing", they may be right.
Apodising, as I said refers simply to a filter with a cutoff lower than classic half-band. This kind of filter is a very british thing. The inventor, main proponents and/or main implementers are all british.
Apodising filters are currently available as standard only with DAC Chip's from one small british manufacturer. Any other implementation of such filtering would require bypassing the internal digital filter in the DAC Chip and performing the filtering externally in DSP.
Apodising was proposed by Peter G. Craven and for a specific reason. During recording the ADC typically includes a lowpass filter. Since the late 80's this filter is always digital and almost always a sharp rolloff half-band filter (AKA brickwall filter).
By using a lower filter cut-off during playback the playback filter will dominate the impulse response of the system and may be chosen to be very different to the recording filter, optimised for subjective performance. The downside, you loose a few kHz high frequency extension with CD Standard signals.
The benefits or not of apodising or not are indeed debated. I included apodising filters in one product I helped to design - I still prefer to avoid digital filters entirely and to use only analogue domain filtering instead (a british/japanese gig that few others have gotten in on, which does not make it invalid).
> Although it appears that many DACs were not reaching their
> potential, as you noted. But I replaced it with a new point.
I noted that some DAC Chips (very few) had THD & N with high signal levels that was substantially less than the CD Specification even though their noise levels (and/or -60dBFS Dynamic Range) is close to or matches CD Specification.
These kind of DAC Chips used to be very rare in quality equipment, though they had a bit of a renaissance due to publications in Musen to Jikken Magazine by Kusonoki San who showed the first modern "non-oversampling" DAC using these precise chips as "proof of concept".
Those who cannot really design but only copy have since been elevating these chip's in copies of Kusonoki San's designs (in my view incorrectly) to "high end" status.
Finally, please look at some early "Flagship" CD-Players and DAC's (mid to late 80's - say Sony DAS-R1 or Marantz CD/DA-12) and then tell me which of your claimed problems actually plague them and where they are materially worse than a modern CDP/DAC with your supposed improvements if playing 44.1kHz/16 bit material.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Optical playback is dead in high-end audio. For a reason. It wasn't complaints over convenience of CD (vs. LP). It was sound, son. Disc treatments and disk drives were better. If you can afford the Esoteric transports, then this changes things. But not too many can stretch for this.This is not a debate over magnetic shielding. My point stemmed from linear power supplies, which have problems. That's why we (now) have Hynes regulators, Bybee shunt devices and (in the last 10 years) the 'switch' to SMPS by many names in audio. Benchmark at the low end of price, and co. like Soulution on the high. SMPS have transformers but are much smaller.
Then, it's not difficult to shield magnetics ? Benchmark engineer said so -but let's say he's wrong, look at the measures they take with hard-disk drives and MRI machines. They do it -but it's not "easy".
On jitter -I'll let you disagree with engineers who say that it's -very much- a separate, undesirable noise. If it's a timing problem, how does this hurt the amplitude/frequency spectrum ? Which it clearly does. And why are outboard clocks better ? The designers will tell you lower noise.
And it's hard to find -anyone- out there who says "clocks are not accurate". You are saying strange (and foolish) things...
Edits: 04/14/16 04/14/16 04/14/16 04/14/16 04/14/16
Now look Mate,
Other than observing the death of optical disks (or rather the progressive disuse of physical objects to store writings, music and video and more and not just in the high end), you are talking utter bollox (as they say on planet anagramia) and spout misinterpreted and misunderstood sales propaganda and buzzwords as science fact.
I mean goodness gracious me, you did not just drink the cool aid, you exhausted their supply and asked for more. Technically speaking your assertions are generally just not sustainable. I am not again going into details, I already did.
Your main gig seems to be that some magic new tech (even if it is the same old wine in new skins or even older spoiled wine in bad skins sold as the latest gimmick) suddenly redeemed CD Standard audio.
It does not do any such thing.
The best playback of the best recordings was always pretty good.
And the worst playback of the worst recordings... Lord have mercy.
I have been exposed (not complete list) to LP, Half track Master Tape, heck, Metal Tape with Dolby HX on my Sony "Buduh Khan" K7 walkman (also had the pro for on site recording, bloody decent on a TDK 60min Metal tape), early PCM on Betamax Tapes, Decca's digital system, true TOTL Flagship early CD Machines, the best early DVD Players on DVD Audio.
Given a good recording - any of them gave musical pleasure and while they all (of course) sound different, preference often was more down to what format the music was available on, rather than the format.
Heck, someone once played me 78 master acetates on a system designed to work with these.
Fuk Mi, I always thought of 78's as "well below No-Fi" until then...
Sure I have favorites, but most if not all of these rule ok.
I own (and occasionally record with) a BBC spec Sony PCM-F1 set, sold to me as "Alan Parson owned this one" with some backing documentation (so he might, or might not have owned/used this unit - I am skeptical but the price was right either way).
That is a "pre CD" digital recording system. The late and great Peter Baxandall declared this device (it is not stock, but modded to final BBC spec which was a diverse set of mods addressing both audio and usability is studio settings) to be "transparent".
It does not oversample, downsample, clocks are generically crystal, the core ADC/DAC Chip is "90dB" only. Yet it is true multibit, filters are analogue (so minimum phase), much of the circuit is discrete (and very clever and by today's High End Doctrine even revolutionary) and does a good job.
I cannot fully agree with Peter Baxandall (read I can hear this mother in a loop - but I actually don't mind it being there, more than I can say for a BBC Studer or K7 or LP).
With a way to get the converted data out of the box and the playback back in (modded with extra SPDIF I/O it rather antedates SPDIF) it is bloody decent and despite predating CD and being "only 15 Bit" it kicks the proverbial out of many of the modern, newlyfangled "High Rez" recording systems.
It is bested handily by a Pacific Microsonic Model 2, but they are so rare and expensive, I cannot justify owning one (if anyone has one going cheap or free - I'll have it - pretty please).
In fact, I have heard nothing looped in between Mic/Mic-Pre & Level Controller/Monitors that betters the PM2 and not a heck of a lot that beats a BBC Spec Sony F1, to my ears and tastes. The Merging Horus also makes a very nice PCM ADC/DAC, never tried the Grimm DSD ADC, supposedly it is also nice in DSD, who knows.
Playback only, CD-Standard material only, the Philips LHH1000/Marantz DA-12 bests Sony F1, as does Sony DAS-R1, Accuphase DP-80 is also very good (that uses a discret-ish current steering DAC).
And of course anything that matches the PMM2 design and is decent (read HDCD Digital filter, Ultra-analogue current-output DAC, good analogue stages ) - think Audio Synthesis DAX UA version - literally matches PMM2 for playback only.
Most later "Flagship" units actually loose out to the early originals and only in the oughties did we see a return to something not miles off the sonic performance of these 20'th century classics in the absolute high end, at (excluing PM) 10 to 100 times the sales price of those original flagship units.
Nothing Delta Sigma comes close to my ears, good hybrids run in PCM do. Some things I worked on in the last decade or so, that dispense with any digital filtering - well, I like them better still.
Never having spend time with it, I think the TotalDAC stuff should be RAD, as should be the top of the line stuff from MSB, but my name is not DeBeers or KruegerRand...
I still f...king miss my heavily modded Shanling CD Player (including SPDIF In) with HDCD Filter, filterless option, dual PCM1704 per channel, passive I/V conversion (shinko Tantalum resistor), non-feedback WE 396A tube analogue (yes, real WE's) with audio note silver coupling cap's, which fed-ex "lost" in the early 2k's.
Sure, insurance paid up, but I could never find another machine of that vintage and those silver caps were Japanese originals, the wire I used too, I really hated to loose this unit. Hope whoever ended up with it enjoys it. Hoping against hope I'll get it back...
Stuff I currently help designing at its best is not that far off that unit, but still.
Of course - different strokes for different blokes. I know which mast I nail my colours to, though.
TL:DR
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
You make me want to dust off my Sony 507ESD and give it a try again. It was not TOL, but sounded good to me, especially considering it was a late 80's player.
Dave
I wonder if you have listened to half the things you talk about?
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Had CD been standardised with a 64kHz sample rate and 18 Bits...
the format was deemed a necessary compromise given the original 640 MB media capacity. Using your sample rate and word size, a CD would be limited to about 45 minutes of play time.
Marketing demanded more.
I just have to shake my head and smile when folks say 16/44 is good enough in today's world that eliminates that arbitrary fence.
Aren't they recording with 20 bit resolution ? And sample rates way beyond 44Khz ? With noise-shaping, this quality got preserved on the 16/44 disc.
Aren't they recording with 20 bit resolution ?
Who's they ? And what does that have to do with a 16 bit format?
With noise-shaping, this quality got preserved on the 16/44 disc.
What exactly is this quality? As for me, I can hear the limitations of Redbook and prefer better.
..anyone producing audiophile music, since the early 1990s. Noise-shaping since then too...
that the recording industry standard is 24 bits - unattainable in the Redbook format.
If CD quality is good enough for you, cool. MP3 quality is good enough for the masses...
Just recently did a comparison between 320 Mp3 and a CD recently..the Mp3 was supplied as a free download while the shipped.
The CD is was clearly superior, and it was not even close. Mixing them in the same folder and shuffling the tracks I was able to pick out the CD rip (FLAC) and the mp3 10 out of 10 times.
Good enough? What a hoot. But it seems the OP prefers absolutes and a lot of mental masturbation over listening to tunez.
Good enough? What a hoot.
digital resolution has always been driven by computer storage technology at the time. When iTunes hit the streets in 2001, ipods were limited to 5 GB of storage and the first minis, 1 GB.
You could store only six 24/96 FLAC albums on the former and but one on the latter. Who would do that? Today, however, I can fit my entire digital library one a single 256 GB flash drive.
I'm delighted we are no longer saddled with such sonic compromises. Unfortunately, the music industry hasn't caught up with technology.
Then bandwidth becomes the big player. A lot of the compression methods were created when there was mostly dial up users. That and HD capacity was a lot smaller. Bandwidth is money. It's why cell phone sampling rates are still so low.
ET
Then bandwidth becomes the big player.
Only if you assume streaming playback over cellular networks and that's not the question discussed here. I regularly download 24/96 albums in a couple of minutes to my computer. That versus days even for Amazon Prime to deliver CDs. Local brick and mortar stores rarely, if ever have the content. In fact, I have two used ones on the way now from them. Why? They are unavailable in a high rez downloadable PCM format.
It's why cell phone sampling rates are still so low.
I stream 24/96 content from my music server using the iPeng app to both iPhone6 and iPad Air2 (downsampled to 24/48 for their internal DACs) via WiFi. They are used as players in my garage system and for listening via IEMs at night in the bedroom.
Yes, but at the time the iPod was introduced, portability was seen as a convenience, and serious listeners would always consider the physical media the main source.
Then Apple in their market wizardry convinced millions that their 128 AAC excrement was "normal" quality.
As you note, storage concerns are quaint today, with terabytes available for peanuts.
There is literally no reason for commercially available lossy files to to exist.
What do you mean when you say the music industry has not caught up?
What do you mean when you say the music industry has not caught up?
Continued lack of wide support for superior high resolution formats. The CD represents Jurassic era digital. The major labels should replace CDs with master resolution quality downloads. Ironically, the most expensive part of the CD is the total cost of the media itself: raw cost of manufacturing disk along with shipping, inventory carrying, dead stock, etc.
Apple, Google and Amazon get it with their digital services.
Ok, I am really confused now.
First, the labels ARE selling master quality downloads, through Pono, HDTracks, Qobuz, ProStudioMasters, etc. Are you uninformed about this?
They are selling all they are going to sell because there really is a tiny market for it.
Secondly, what on earth is Google Music, Apple, and Amazon doing "right" aside from polluting the ecosystem with an ocean of lossy slop?
...but how many of these downloads are beyond-CD resolution ? Many are not.Labels would have to re-master their titles -and in today's world of cost-cutting, they're not gonna do it.
Edits: 04/13/16
Incorrect. Virtually every classic rock and pop catalog is available in higher than CD resolution.I can think of only a handful of exceptions..The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and The Bee Gees are really all I can come up with.
Edit: you can add u2, except for one album, Achtung Baby!
Edits: 04/13/16
BS!
Virtually every classic rock and pop catalog is available in higher than CD resolution.
Are you really under that delusion? Such a ludicrous claim can be readily debunked.
Yeah, you really are drinking the industry Kool-Aid!
I just set the Audio Devices in Audio Midi Setup to 88200.0 Hz, 24 bit and send it off to my USB DAC.
I use 176400 because it is an even multiple of 44.1 Sounds good
Alan
.
it's good enough for me!
I wonder about the Pono player and Neil's ears? With drug use, loud concerts and age related hearing loss he'd be better searching for a heart of gold ;> )
I know a lot of audiophiles and not one has Pono. Is it still alive?
Alan
I believe it is. Neil has pulled all his stuff off the streaming services except Tidal Premium hoping people will buy downloads.
Absolute and utter nonsense. Please provide back up for your claim.
Buyer beware:
..and again:
to provide factual data to this guy.
Counting to thirteen is a challenge in itself.
Let's take some lightweight "pop" performers like Madonna, The Police, Taylor Swift and Rihanna.
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, you won't find much at all in terms of downloads in any of the sites you referenced.
If I took another five minutes, I could list perhaps another couple dozen or so that contradict your fabulously optimistic position. :)
Best of luck to you!
Madonna's first 5 albums are available in 24/192. SNAP. OOOPS.
https://www.hdtracks.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=madonnaI happen to know that both taylor swift and rhianna records at 44.1/24. I promise you nothing will be gained over the CD.
Too bad for you if you don't have the Police SACD rips.
Your credibility is just about zero now on these matters.
Edits: 04/13/16 04/13/16
I happen to know that both taylor swift and rhianna records at 44.1/24.
The whole session was in 24/48
I really agreed with this sentiment of Justin's:
"The recording industry is in crisis, and there are many reasons for that, but one of the contributing factors is technical, and the technical side of the industry needs to take responsibility for the problems we are having. "
Amen.
but Madonna's early catalog was analog, after that it was all 44.1/16 and 44.1/24 PCM
We run the audio at 96k
You can link all you want. What you don't know is those TS final mixdowns and masters are 44.1.
Why are you linking to an article about Madonna's live show? No bearing at all what so ever on studio production.
Yet another 'phile who suffers from expert syndrome. You think you are an expert on everything...I do this for a living.
What you don't know is those TS final mixdowns and masters are 44.1.
That being the case only negates your previously stated assertion:
"Virtually every classic rock and pop catalog is available in higher than CD resolution."
Good job contradicting yourself!
Why are you linking to an article about Madonna's live show?
Perhaps you are unaware of music videos available on Blu Ray.
Look, you are way out of your league here.You original assertion that there is very little higher than CD resolution popular music available for sale is absolutely wrong but you cling to it, and your pride has force you to off on tangents.
Sure, you can pick a handful of artists..The Police, Robin Trower, The Bee Gees, etc where there is no HiRez.
But there is an enormous amount..CSNY, The Stones, Springsteen, Beach Boys, America, Black Sabbath, Eages, Coltrane, Miles Davis, Dylan, Judy Collins, Doors, Led Zep, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, The ENTIRE BLUE NOTE CATALOG, Ramones, MC5, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Neil Young, Elvis Presley, Allman Brothers, Santana, Janis Joplin, Blood, Sweat, Tears, James Taylor, R.E.M, Velvet Underground, The ENTIRE GRATEFUL DEAD studio output, the Cars, Simon & Garfunkel, Paul Simon, Lou Reed, Mahavishnu, Love, etc etc etc etc.
The freaking WHO...Frank FREAKING Sinatra...The Kinks...your premise is ridiculous.
NOT to mention most of the Decca, EMI, RCA Living Stereo etc classical recordings.
So you are uninformed and spreading BS.
Edits: 04/14/16
at least don't make that up either. Let's review what I actually posted :
Continued lack of wide support for superior high resolution formats [by the music industry]
There's not "pop" qualification to be found.
You original assertion that there is very little higher than CD resolution popular music available for sale is absolutely wrong
I'll repeat: if you find that one percent of the entire music catalog as "wide support", then we might agree.
Sure, you can pick a handful of artists..The Police, Robin Trower, The Bee Gees, etc where there is no HiRez.
I'm delighted you have reversed your earlier (ludicrous) supposition to the contrary.
your premise is ridiculous.
Only to those who are challenged by math.
So you are uninformed and spreading BS.
Unlike what you've posted, there isn't a single misstatement to be found.
You continue to illustrate the dysfunction and lack of awareness in the music industry. Did you note that statement was also NOT limited to a single genre as well?
Talking Heads, Ryan Adams, Glen Campbell, Patti Smith, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Joe Satriani, Don Henley, Thelonius Monk, Micheal Jackson, The Black Keys, Canned Heat, ELP, Jethro Tull, New York Dolls, Soundgarden, Otis Redding, Temptations, George Benson, Dean Martin, Pink Floyd, Nick Drake, Bob Marley, Leonard Cohen, Graham Nash, David Crosby, Bill Evans, Duke Ellington...............
One thing for sure is true..as they say..you can't fight audiophile hubris
with facts.
for continuing to illustrate your lack of understanding as to the totality of the music catalog.edit: BTW, I truly thank you for pointing out the Pono store. While there's little of interest to me available in high rez, they have a far wider collection of downloadable Redbook where you can purchase song by song. Since the albums are about twice the cost of what you find at Amazon, I'll still buy the CD and rip it.
Edits: 04/14/16
Then run it through HQPlayer and...
HIGH REZ!!!!
"Little of interest" to you? What a joke.I am cueing up the new CSNY Deja Vu in 24/192, the 24/192 Rush, Yes, Joni Mitchell, Miles Davis, and Elvis Costello remasters today..
and the sublime 24/96 and 24/192 Van Morrison remasters (the entire catalog!).... Those are remarkable!
..while you whine and complain and spread misinformation.
Edits: 04/14/16 04/14/16
that even you now acknowledge - I have not made a single misstatement.
My listening tastes are not stuck with past reissues.
Hooverphonic, Seal, Hozier, Leon Bridges, Alt-J, Mayer Hawthorne, M83, I could go on for pages..but you will cling to your alternate reality.
your posts to your superiors at Universal?
How do you think they would find your outright lies and utter lack of understanding as to the big picture of the music industry today - across ALL the genres?
Do you think your perspective places a positive image of the music industry and its understanding of what is actually available?
Tell you what - as one of their consumers, I'll do that for you! :)
Oh, trust me I did..and we had a heck of a laugh at your expense!
In between giggles we went through all the non reissue, non rock and non pop releases available on Pono, Qobuz, ProStudioMasters,Highresaudio, Superhirez, and HDT could not believe the numbers.
We don't want uninformed customers who think they know better and who spread utter nonsense on the internet. But again, typical audiophool..you are an expert on every subject known to man.
Enough, back to my high rez playlist..Rokia Traore, Jaques Brel, Charles Aznavour, and Anoushka Shankar.
Toodles.
utter ignorance and lying doesn't exist at all levels at Universal.
We'll see...
who spread utter nonsense on the internet.
You keep saying that and have yet to demonstrate that anything that I've said is a misstatement of fact.
Lies. Disillusionment. Lack of perspective.
That's a great testimony to your (lack of) profession. :)
So, let us know when you get past demonstrating the availability of more than 430,000 high resolution tracks. Good luck!
More horseshit..
Ben Harper, Father John Misty, Lord Huron, Lumineers, Punch Bros, Lizz Wright, Coldplay, Daft Punk, Ray Lamontagne, Weezer, Andrew Bird, Sufjan Stevens, Bombino, Gwen Stefani, Tori Amos, Alanis Morrisette, Wilco, Anoushka Shankar,Ryan Adams, Jake Bugg, Norah Jones....
Keep digging..you are sounding more ridiculous with every post.
you continue to find only spotty coverage. Is anyone really surprised? So, what actually is available in true high rez (> 44.1)?
Coldplay - 11 albums
Pono-1
HDTracks-2
Qobuz-1
ProStudioMasters-0
2 <> 11 FAIL!
Weezer - 10 albums
Pono-2
Qobuz-2
HDTracks-2
ProStudioMasters-1
2 <> 10 FAIL!
Bombino - 5 albums
Pono-2
HDTracks-1
Qobuz-0
ProStudioMasters-0
2 <> 5 FAIL!
It is trivial to find any number of other failures to deliver an artist's catalog. How about?
Paramore - 12 albums including soundtracks
Pono-1
HDTracks-1
Qobuz-3
ProStudioMasters-0
3 <> 12 FAIL!
Katy Perry - 4 albums
Pono-0
HDTtracks-0
Qobuz-1
ProStudioMasters-0
1 <> 4 FAIL!
Blue Foundation - 6 albums
Pono-0
HDTracks-0
Qobuz-0
ProStudioMasters-0
Give the studios a little time. Rome wasn't built in a day, and iTunes wasn't populated overnight. :)
--------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
especially in light of the fact that MP3s are the preferred format. I enjoy what little I can find.
You'd think someone who actually works for a company like Universal might have a more accurate perspective. Something like, "yeah, I know but you have to appreciate the economics and the fact that the vast majority of the public just doesn't care".
That would have been an entirely reasonable response.
Instead, he continues to foment overt lies (he's even contradicted himself!) and acts like a juvenile having absolutely no understanding of the size of the music catalog. And complains that I live in an "audiophile bubble". I'll happily take that moniker when it means "objective perspective". :)
For me why I don't buy downloads is most are just upsampled 16/44 files. I can stream from tidal and upsample on my own and not pay ridiculous prices for downloads
Alan
I hear what you're saying and am aware of isolated cases where the "high resolution" claim has been fudged for a particular recording. Or, in the case of Qobuz, a "watermark" has been added. Bad form indeed.
Having said that, I have quite a few 96/24 recordings that are clearly superior to their Redbook counterparts at the top end. I have perhaps half a dozen examples of music in LP, Redbook and 96/24.
When not "fudged", I find that (true) 96/24 offers the best of what the other two formats offer.
On this we can agree!! Listen to Graham Nash's lovely new album in 24/96.
I still like 24/192 and DSD128 if it can be done. But I don't fret about it.
On this we can agree!!
There you go! :)
I will always select a (true) high resolution download when such is available.
....As will I. Bandcamp also offers many exclusive 24 bit versions of albums. I have hundreds from there.
Don't know about you, but in my digital library there is content across nearly a hundred different genres. You've brushed the surface of a couple.
The iTunes library itself has over forty-three million songs in it.
Good luck attempting to keep up!
Most at MP3 or 16/44
Alan
The context is what percent of the total music library available today - across all genres - is available in a true high resolution format.
Empirically, the data suggests that the most optimistic answer is about 0.5%.
Madonna's first 5 albums are available in 24/192. SNAP. OOOPS.
Oops indeed. You can't even count! Yes, four of the thirteen are available. I have three of those.
I happen to know that both taylor swift and rhianna records at 44.1/24. I promise you nothing will be gained over the CD.
First of all, what idiot records at 44/24? Fail. Again.
Too bad for you if you don't have the Police SACD rips.
Kindly point to where those can be (legally) downloaded. Best of luck to you!
Your credibility is just about zero now on these matters.
Those must be good drugs you're on! I'm now understanding quite well why the music industry is dysfunctional. :)
Obviously , you still don't understand the difference between 1 and 100. Token samplings are not what ensures success. The data proves that.
I was off by one album but you can't even complete a simple search.Hate to pop another bubble, but Madonna's early catalog was analog, after that it was all 44.1/16 and 44.1/24 PCM.
Who records in 44.1? How about 90% of all artist who make synthetic pop, like Rhianna, and Pharrel Williams. I use the term "synthetic" not as derogatory term concerning the music, but meaning that the only live instrument is the vocal most of the time.
Takes quite a set of stones to think you know better than the artists.
Can they come to your job and tell you how to do it?
Edits: 04/13/16
I was off by one album but you can't even complete a simple search.
Do you understand the difference between 4 and 13? Is that too difficult for a music mogul to comprehend?
How about 90% of all artist who make synthetic pop, like Rhianna, and Pharrel Williams.
Sorry, I don't begin to believe the ramblings of such a clueless poster. Now it's your turn to provide substantiation. Which will never occur.
Yeah, no answer to The Police thing. No surprise there. You have no understanding of legal implications, do you?
Or dozens of other artists if I bothered to take a few more minutes. 1 <> 100.
Takes quite a set of stones to think you know better than the artists.
Do you really think that the artists define the recording resolution? Are you that utterly clueless? Back your claim with any notion of fact if you expect anyone to believe you.
Clearly, all you have is empty speculation and poor ability to count numbers even on one hand. It didn't even require you to use your toes if Madonna's catalog were really available as you originally opined.
So much for anything in the way of factual data.
In the 25 years I was in the studio very few artists ever had a clue what we were doing technically
Alan
LOL. Enjoy that Audiophile bubble. Nobody was better at it than your mentor.
Edits: 04/13/16 04/13/16
attempt to baffle with bull$hit, right? :)
Do you expect anyone to actually believe your speculations?
Nobody was better at it than your mentor.
To which one do you refer? Dr. Cooledge, as member of the board of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, was involved with getting the Telarc recording contract for many a fine result.
I participated in one of their wonderful recordings where I learned what real recording engineers do. At least those with integrity.
...but what's their native resolution ?!!
"...but what's their native resolution ?!!"
I don't understand your question.
First, the labels ARE selling master quality downloads, through Pono, HDTracks, Qobuz, ProStudioMasters, etc. Are you uninformed about this?I have purchased many through those channels. If you consider covering perhaps 1% of the musical catalog "wide support", then we agree.
My day job is supply chain management. Providing the ability to download everything is they key. It's the infrastructure they use which could be instantly converted to any high resolution format. Using people to pick, pack and ship physical media that must be inventoried is a costly and failed model. All one has to do is view the latest RIAA statistics .
edit: Unfortunately, for the vast majority of music I purchase, I must purchase and rip CDs - used where possible since I never use the CD once I've ripped the content.
Edits: 04/13/16
The latest stastistics I saw now show streaming as the #1 money maker. Cds were at the bottom of the list
Alan
that the writing is on the wall for physical media in the music industry. It's simply too costly and inflexible from a supply chain POV vs downloads.
In time, that will be the case with video as well, but since the bandwidth requirements are so much higher, that will take more time. Ripping a Blu Ray results in 25-40 GB files. :)
Physical media is by far the #1 form of consumption in Japan and a few other countries. Japan is the second larges market on the planet the US of course being #1. I travel to Japan twice yearly and the CD shops are enormous and packed with young people.Streaming has failed there. Spotify just aborted plans to expand in Japan. I know this for a fact as one of my long time friends works there.
Edits: 04/18/16
What does your friend in Japan have to say about it?
My friend does not live in Japan. They work for Spotify in London. The Japanese market has been a dismal failure. They could not get consumers to sign up for accounts. They tried everything.
Wrap your head around this. Tower Records, which famously went bust here in the US, has 85 stores in Japan. Several of which I visited last year..multi floor monoliths.
On top of that, licensing for streaming is much more difficult. See this article.
Are the RIAA statistics that I previously quoted here limited to the US?
yes, and your point?
show us the data for Japan.
Sorry, you've already demonstrated how grossly inaccurate your shoot-from-the-hip *facts* are.
Don't ask me then..google is your friend.
You don't have the remotest clue as to the answer!
No surprise there. :)
You are full of shit. I know the EXACT numbers.
Get off your ass and do the research.
You claim my information is bogus, but want me to supply numbers.
You can't have it both ways chucky.
Why am I not surprised, Pearson was an impetuous, petty man. You learned from the best.
I know the EXACT numbersToo funny. Apparently providing a link is beyond your intellectual capability.
Understood.
You can't have it both ways chucky.
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you simply make up $hit to fit your mood.
Pearson was an impetuous, petty man
Yeah, that supports you continued lack of substantiation to anything you'd claimed. :)
edit: I'll do your work and put the world market into perspective :
"The biggest culprits for the fall were an 8.1% decline in revenues from physical format sales...
Another first for the industry in 2014 was that digital and physical music consumption contributed the same proportion of total revenues for the first time... "
The physical media ship is sinking...
Edits: 04/19/16
Ohhh kay..let's try this again.
You cannot allocate resources to a market, where there is no market.
Every single "high resolution" format has failed disasterously in the mainstream market. Like, were are talking the Titanic. SACD, DVD-A, you name it.
Even going back 30 years, boutique labels were the ones who were producing "master quality" LPs and CDs that sold a few thousand if it was a blockbuster..to the SAME 1% you refer to.
It is amazing how many times day I have to pop an audiophile bubble. My pin is getting dull.
Every single "high resolution" format has failed disasterously in the mainstream market.
And why do you think that was? The CD succeeded because EVERY piece of music was released on it. Let me say that agsin since you don't seem to appreciate the difference between 1 and 100.
DVD-A and SACD releases were spotty and token like the hi rez downloads today. Most of what you want is simply unavailable . It required special gear for playback. Today, even $99 DACs and smartphones support 24/88 or 24/96 ocntent. Duh.
It is amazing how many times day I have to pop an audiophile bubble.
And are utterly clueless as to economic failure of continuing to milk physical media. Switching over to downloads would reduce cost substantially and there is effectively no additional cost in providing the original master vs. some downsampled compromise as we find today.
If you're part of the music industry, it is easy to understand the failure the RIAA reports.
You can split hairs, rationalize, and be as idealistic as you want to be it won't change the facts.99% of the music buying public do not care, or know the difference.
No business can sustain itself catering to a small group... the 1%.
Edits: 04/13/16 04/13/16
99% of the music buying public do not care, or know the difference.
Why then do the geniuses in the music industry still produce and distribute CDs if MP3 downloads are "good enough"?
They piss away resources that could be better leveraged. It's apparent they simply don't give a $hit - and whine about the state of the market.
Again cd sales (in the US) are behind streaming and downloads
Alan
when consumers observe the obvious - and those actually in the industry demonstrate (vociferously) they are utterly clueless.
Go figure.
> Not sure you understand what "feed forward" here may signify.It seems to be a new term for positive feedback, or a slight variation of it. I always thought that LPF had to do with boosting gain, not correcting linearity problems.
Edit: Oops, I thought you meant you didn't understand what "feed forward" meant. Silly me.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 04/13/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: