|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.169.2.66
In Reply to: RE: How can less than 10,000 SA-CDs & files be representative posted by jamestavegia@gmail.com on May 19, 2015 at 13:44:34
exactly as you are stating. Ultimately,- it is likely the economy & the massive loss of wealth that is being taken from everyone by the 1%The lack of leisure time, plus the ubiquity of portable players/phones, means that lower quality music goes everywhere. Less and less people can listen for its own sake, in a static home environment. If people don't have the time, or can't experience the superior quality of hi-rez files/discs, - and most of the files that other consumers are buying are .mp3, - then they are not going to pay more for better: especially if they can't make direct comparisons.
It is what it is: and what hi-rez is is not worth it to most everyone. So the big labels who are already suffering from lack of physical discs, can't/don't/won't invest in a higher resolution files that very few will buy.
The big "disc-selling" artists are all making .mp3s at lower quality than redbook. Streaming services are streaming in .mp3 or worse.
Cookie is absolutely right: when she says that people who don't buy their files don't like the the music of their artists. I would rather buy redbook files/discs of the music that I like, than buy hi-quality recordings. I've been down that road before with Chesky, wasting money on expensive discs made by artists who are 3rd rate IMO.
With hi-rez downloads and discs under 10,000 albums: there's a whole world of people who are not going to get music that they like. Classical, Jazz, and a few prog-rock discs from the 60s-70s + some current unoriginal bands who copy 70s bands: (yes there are a few original new artists, Goldfrapp, Groove Armada, PG, etc, [just a smattering]), will not make hi-rez downloads "popular," successful. (The kind of jazz & classical offered by Chesky, Blue Coast), are not popular compared to "the Voice" style pop crooners, Arabic Dance, pop-rock, roots rock, etc.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 05/19/15 05/19/15 05/19/15Follow Ups:
Everything you say is correct, but you left out one important fact. Hi-rez and DSD in particular are the closest thing to the master tape you are ever going to get. "Master tape quality" is a much overused term, but it applies to DSD, and that changes everything. I just got The Stones, Let it Bleed. It sounds amazingly good.
You know, there are people on this forum who spend big money on RTR tape machines, and if they have a collection of thirty tapes they think they are doing very well. I would much rather pay $30 for a DSD file as opposed to $350 for a 15 ips tape.
I think the numbers are even worse than you suggest. On Acoustic Sounds I count 500 DSD files, and 1800 PCM 96/24 files. I think there are 30 DSD files I want, and I'm sure I could find 70 pcm files. The record collector in me says that 100 albums is a legitimate collection.
Hopefully the selection of downloads will continue to grow. PONO music just came online. I think it's just the beginning of this format. It will have to build up more momentum to become relevant, but it may.
---------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
I really enjoy about 30 of my 50 SACDs, and I always play them when I want to hear those artists: as opposed to listening to them on the computer or the redbook discs: where I also have them. I only have one or two SACDs where the SACD version is muddier, & sounds worse than the redbook.
I really don't like the way the term "master" and "mastering" is used. Traditionally, the term "mastering" comes from taking the "final mix" or "master" tapes to the production facility, and applying EQ (and sadly compression) during the process of cutting a lacquer for vinyl duplication. From there, a few metal discs are used as masters base duplication points, depending on the run of pressings.
My point is that we rarely know how the original, final mixes sound. Even the artists, and producers, forget. By the time that a recording got played on the radio, (in the past), it was likely the 4th or 5th generation of what happened on mix down day, and way over a year after that day. I remember getting a "test" cassette of the master of our recording as a "double check" from KDisk. It was so horrible, I started booking a plane ticket to NYC to come and oversee the process. Luckily, though, our producer/engineer called me from KDisk later that night, he took care of it.
Some lucky people do get to buy a safety copy of the final mixes; every now and then. Now, we have "clean-up" people, who are middle-men who sit at a computer, re-interpret the music, and build the digital file, either in hi-rez or not: and add their own "take" on the final mixes. IMO, these can vary widely from the original mix. The Rolling Stones ABKCO SACDs don't sound like the original vinyl, and they sound different again from the redbook CDs.
The SHM-SACD of Steely Dan Aja has a way different tonal character than the vinyl, and a way different tonal character to the Universal Gaucho SACD.
It was revelatory to me, whenever, my guitars sounded much different in the rough mixes than when I played them in the enclosed room, different again during the final mixes, different again on the CD, & different again on the AIFF files... (yet played back on the same playback system). Which one is right?
I sure hope that you're right, and I agree that the Pono thing is pretty cool. I am happy to make an investment in DSD/Hi-Rez file playback above what I have now, IF there will be NEW original material & a reasonable selection: instead of just doing another version of Steely Dan, Patricia Barber, etc, stuff that's already been released in other formats.
I guess that I shouldn't be arguing too vociferously as this spiraling cycle of lack of hi-rez feeds upon itself towards doom. As listening habits & wealth of people change/decline: the demand for hi-rez material goes down. People need their money for other stuff. This also hurts album sales for ALL discs and even .mp3 downloads. So people just want to spend &.99 on one song. So the "labels" don't take chances on original material, and promote artists who sound the same as everyone else, and don't cost them anything in expenses. This is all geared to hoping/investing for 1 hit, that comes from American Idol, or the Voice.
This kills SACDs even more, too much investment in art, packaging, discs, etc. and the hi-rez file needs to be created anyway. I do have a problem with companies who buy the rights to duplicate the already built hi-rez files that were used to manufacture SACDs, then jack up the price to purchase a copy of that same file, yet don't offer the other components of the SACD package. At what point will this "kill" the market. Right now, I am betting that few people interested in Hi-Rez file downloads also HAVE EXPERIENCE with SACDs. So, that file better sound as good as the SACD, and it better be cheaper...
The thing that might be a saviour to this death spiral, are things like the PS Audio Directstream DAC, and APL's DSD DAC. DACs that automagically jack up all material to DSD on the fly.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I wonder if there are more audiophiles now than in the '70s? Certainly you can't get around the baby-boom numbers, but there is a significant number these days. Going to shows and reading mags seems to indicate we support a rather diverse and expensive market.All this to say; what if DSD became what 7.5 ips tape was to the '70s audiophile? It wasn't that common to the general market, but it was well supported. Even Columbia House sold them mail order.
If converting RB to DSD does turn out to sound better, and the word gets out? Look out. In a relative way of course. :) It's amazing how many people don't even listen to CDs anymore. However, the download nature of hi-rez plays exactly into that.
As an artist I'm sure you have had a much better understanding of the recording process. For an end user like me, it better sound something like the record, unless the record really sucked. It gets weirder. Does Jimmy Page have the right at this point to do whatever he wants to Zeppelin III, and still call it Zeppelin III? Let it Bleed is so old it's almost a historical document. That must have been a well preserved tape they used for the hi-rez version.
There's a greedy record company for ya. If they sell the hi-rez remastered version of the Zep albums, then why not include a hi-rez flat-transfer from the safety copy? That's what makes me want to slap those bastards. BTW, safety copy is the best term. It's what I meant when I said master copy.
As for the rest, don't get me started on the sad state of the world.
The record companies have been on the lookout for the megahit since Frampton comes alive. Oh, the next jagged little pill. It's out there somewhere. It's interesting to me that small labels have made a come-back.
I so wanted to throw a bunch of crazy talk to Cookie Morenco. You know like how do indie labels get there CDs or music to market, and why doesn't she carry more of them. I suppose Subpop would be the biggest of these. If I was her I would also contact Sun Records. :)
Later,
------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Edits: 05/22/15
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: