So...what do you think the odds are for success of "hi-res" audio?

[Anderton]

You know - the whole 24-bit, 96kHz thing. Frankly, I think the push is in the wrong direction - I wish the industry had doubled down on DSD instead of giving up. Going to 24/96 seems like a step backward from DSD, although being realistic about it, I wonder how many consumers wake up and say "Wow, I sure have a hankering to leave 16/44.1 behind...it's totally unacceptable..."

[Vito Corleone]

Nearly zero chance for success. Audiophile formats have never been more than a niche market. Certainly no reason to see why people would be more excited about it now than they were in 70s or 80s.

 

What I think the industry should try to push right now is 5.1 BluRay. With surround sound systems and BluRay players becoming more prevalent in homes, I could see surround remixed BluRays of classic albums to be a pretty easy sell right now. And once last chance for labels to sell copies of that old catalog. Many of the classic albums even have 5.1 remixes lying around from the last time it was tried with DVD-Audio and SACD. But that hardware didn't exist much then. Now just about everybody has a surround system it seems.

 

And who knows? That might even serve as a gateway for getting more people interested in Hi-Res. Especially since a Hi-Res layer could easily be included on a BluRay. And it might get a whole new generation interested in dedicated listening.

[dboomer]

Are you asking about the Pono thing? Is the question 24/96 vs 16/44.1 or anything real vs mp3?

[techristian]

I was arguing with my brother-in-law about this very thing. He thinks that old vinyl sounds better than CDs ...even at 24/96. He has been working in a real studio and heard 24/96. I argued that it was the COMPRESSION of old vinyl that he really liked. He seems to think that we won't get the fidelity until we hit at least 192/24

 

Dan

[Goober(s)]

Are you asking about the Pono thing? Is the question 24/96 vs 16/44.1 or anything real vs mp3?

 

 

the internet has been talking about Apple offering high res files in itunes

[MikeRivers]

I think the odds of success are pretty good, but for the wrong reason. It doesn't cost any more (other than a few seconds of time and a gigabyte of disk space) to push the "save as 24-bit 96 kHz" button so eventually that's all that will be available. The users will just swallow whatever is fed to them. A small handful, like the small handful of HiFi addicts of the 1950s or audiophiles of the 2000s, will enjoy better sound from some of their collection. To most, "hi res" won't sound any better than what we're hearing now.

 

On the other hand, DSD playback hardware could actually be cheaper to build than what we have in the mass market now, but what we'd probably get delivered in DSD format, with few exceptions, will be plain ol' PCM converted to DSD. The only difference in the process from what we have now is the lack of degradation as a result of the lossy data compression. Once 256kbps MP3 becomes the standard delivery format, only those listening on good playback systems will hear any improvement over "CD quality."

 

[dboomer]

So are we really unhappy with the quality of music played back in elevators? "Sounding better" can be a very different thing than "sonic accuracy". Unfortunately my ears are not what they used to be so for me am not overly concerned. I'm happy to let anyone think whatever they want. My bigger concern is the quality of the music itself. If the song and the performance don't move me then I don't have to worry about what it "sounds" like.

[Iamthesky]

I was arguing with my brother-in-law about this very thing. He thinks that old vinyl sounds better than CDs ...even at 24/96. He has been working in a real studio and heard 24/96. I argued that it was the COMPRESSION of old vinyl that he really liked. He seems to think that we won't get the fidelity until we hit at least 192/24

It's amazing how often you can trick a vinyl fan with a CD if you just add a little pink noise.

[blue2blue]

I've been reading some extremely in-depth discussion of the vaporous Pono, with some fairly knowledgeable people, including the legendary "JJ" from Bell Labs -- as well as with a whole lot of other people who are considerably less knowledgeable, let alone apparently even capable of simple logic. Par for the course on recording boards, of course.

 

Of course, all the strains of thought and issues in this thread have come up in those discussions.

 

Here's a top skim of my thoughts:

 

Necessity of 'high def' formats: Meyer-Moran. What more is there to say? Seriously.

 

If we're looking to replace 16/44.1 with either 1 bit sigma-delta (DSD) or DVD-A (24/96), then the necessary testing seems to have been done -- and found no one in a large and extended set of trials was able to perceive a difference between SACD and DVD-A program material and the same signal with an extra ADC-DAC conversion inserted into the analog playback signal with statistical significance. http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

With regard to why DSD never made much sense to a many serious converter designers like Dan Lavry, have a look at this AES paper: http://sjeng.org/ftp/SACD.pdf

 

With regard to 'multi--bit DSD,' it's not true 1 bit Sigma-Delta -- which is good considering the conclusions of the Lipshitz-Vanderkooy paper -- it's multi-bit PCM -- but according to the folks who seem to know, the multi-bit DSD format nonetheless has implicit problems that tend to lead to greater distortion.

 

 

With regard to Pono and its marketing, some of it is truly disreputable. A number of absolutely ridiculous claims have been made for it in the sales materials. Some of it is just disgraceful. Of course, the true believers REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE... I've never read so much ludicrous, just really stupid stuff. At least not when discussing audio with people who (laughably, of course) call themselves 'engineers.'

 

I love a lot of Neil Young music -- he was a huge influence on me in the late 60s and through the mid 70s -- but, you know, he's really, really, really not qualified to talk about audio. He doesn't appear to know the first thing about sound or audio perception. And, for gosh sake, if he cared about sound so much, why on earth did he release the hideous sounding Le Noise album? (And don't even start me on NY's worldview. How the man who wrote "Four Dead in Ohio" could turn around in less than a decade and endorse and support Reagan still blows my mind. It's another story but it goes to his peculiar 'thought processes.' Yes, he later renounced his support -- but, c'mon Neil, it's not like it was a secret that Reagan was a total shill for the very military-industrial complex that the last great Republican, Ike Eisenhower so poignantly warned us of.)

 

We've heard a little more about the Pono device itself, about how Ayre isn't using the core device's CPU for conversion and how it will augment the converters they did choose with apodizing filters -- which led me to find out more about what an 'apodizing filter' is in audio [telescopy, I was aware of the use], as well as into some open-ended discussion on whether such filters can bring any benefit that was pretty well over my head but seemed to field what looked like persuasive arguments that the use of such a filter could degrade the sound; I think the jury is probably out on this until we see more of the shape of this thing in the mist.

 

[With regard to Surround, I don't know if CNET is right, and 'Surround is Dead' but, after fooling around with it for a while, I decided I prefer conventional stereo for both music and video. http://www.cnet.com/news/is-surround...-out/57618566/]

 

 

Of course, I suspect most of us hope the PONO will prove to be a good sounding unit, the more the merrier, but I've seen a number of suggestions that there is already some well-regarded-by-audiophile competition at the high end (4 figures) but that there is also what seems quite credible competition from beneath the Pono's price point with the FiiO device line, which includes several devices that do 24/192 and all 5 major lossless formats (as well as mp3). http://www.fiio.com.cn/products/inde...nuID=105026016

 

With regard to the availability of "HD" (the term 'high resolution' seems to tick off some engineering types, for several reasons, some of which went past me), a fair bit of material in double and quad Sample Rates and 24 bit has been available for some time through places like HD Trax.

 

And, for those who want to release their own music in "HD" formats -- you can do that now, with no aggregation fees or up-front costs (and one of the highest artist-label-slices in the industry) at BandCamp. Just upload your masters in the format of your choice and the FLAC version they offer will be a lossless version of your original in its bit-depth and sample rate. All DL formats are the same price there; each track can be DL's in anything from full FLAC to tiny 3gp's for phones. If your customer downloads the 'wrong' format, he can just redownload it from the link in his receipt email.)

 

 

Now, I would LOVE it if this burst of hype resulted in a little more interest in better quality sound. Folks walk into stores and end up with crap sounding repro systems. They listen to crap converters in phones and consumer stereos. The amps are often underpowered and the analog circuitry high distortion and particularly subject to intersample over-related distortion -- a huge problem given the loudness wars and the tendency to jam signal into the topmost few dB of dynamic range. Of course, a lot of the music, you can't tell anyhow.

 

 

*PS had to change the font in the middle of Lipshitz-Vanderkooy because of robo-censors.

[Anderton]

Are you asking about the Pono thing? Is the question 24/96 vs 16/44.1 or anything real vs mp3?

 

24/96 vs. 16/44.1 was what I had in mind.

 

 

[JeffLearman]

I think it'll be popular among folks who buy Monster cables. I doubt the vast majority (or possibly even anyone) can hear the difference. The problem with CDs isn't the bandwidth, it's the mastering (overcompression, etc.) No doubt there are probably cases where the mastering required for vinyl but not required for digital formats (e.g., avoiding too much delta) improved the resulting sound since speakers can't handle all possible signals, but there's no reason we couldn't do that for digital, and I bet better mastering houses do.

 

However,I think Mike hit the nail on the head. Before long, the additional data space or download time will be a non-issue for all but the most avid of collectors on the smallest of budgets, and since "more is better", people will go for the newer/bester/morer formats regardless of what they can actually hear.

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

 

With regard to Surround, I don't know if CNET is right, and 'Surround is Dead' but, after fooling around with it for a while, I decided I prefer conventional stereo for both music and video.

 

 

 

Many music fans and audiophiles prefer conventional stereo, and it can certainly be argued that 5.1 music is somewhat of a "gimmick", but it's one that is at least easily discernible by the average listener. But it's not about what the most discerning listeners might or might not prefer, but what might appeal to the average Joe. 99.9% of people can't hear a difference between hi and lo rez recordings, and even if they could, probably don't care. Are surround movies and TV on the 'way out' and people are no longer buying surround systems for their living room? If CNET is right about this, than yes-- I agree that surround music has no future. Surround music in and of itself isn't going to inspire too many people to buy surround systems. But would people who already have the system in place want to pick up a surround version of "Dark Side of the Moon" if they saw it at the checkout aisle at Target? I think many would.

 

But the article's opinion that surround music would never catch on because it never did before misses the mark, IMO. The reason earlier attempts didn't catch on was because it required people to buy special equipment. My argument is that 5.1 surround music would at least have a shot at succeeding now because the playback systems already exist in far more homes than they ever did before.

 

 

 

[Anderton]

I'm pretty much on the same page as Meyer-Moran, and their explanation of why SACDs often did sound better makes total sense. But, I do recall a test at AES years ago when 30 ips tape was recorded in multiple formats and played back over those same formats. I really did think I could hear a difference between DSD and 16/44 PCM. However, I tend to think it had more to do with the "glue" surrounding the technology - specifically, the output filtering - than the recording technology itself.

 

As to the complaints about CDs sounding "harsh" and "brittle" when they first came out, I have a simple theory about that. At the time, 16-bit converters typically did only 12-14 bits of real resolution, and many CD players used 12-bit converters to save money, which delivered 10-11 bits of resolution. Of course they sounded "harsh" and "brittle"!

 

I assume the reason for pushing high-res to give the music biz a shot in the arm, but I agree with guido61 that 5.1 bluray with DSD would be a better direction. Just because surround generally hasn't done well doesn't mean it can't be...for classical music, it really can feel like you have the best seat in a concert hall. And of course, the potential for electronic music is pretty appealing.

[WRGKMC]

24/96 sound cards are already standard issues in many cards sold in computers now.

It however hasn't made a dent in how music is sold. I just don't think there's a demand and

people downloading music probably wont opt to pay more for a high res file (online storage of larger files costs money)

over something that's good enough for there ears. If sellers could offer customers the choice between the two

as a sample and there was an audible difference that might sell the higher res files.

 

 

Its allot like the HD channels on TV. I get those free weeks where they make those channels available and record some of the shows in that format.

I accidentally recorded one in HD and the same one in regular. I tested both and it made no difference in playback quality.

It my be the quality of my set. I didn't go for the $3K top of the line HD TV, Just a $400 41". Maybe the difference can be seen on some high end set

but for the masses of people they need to target with their higher dollar subscriptions in audio and visual, those people need to see or hear enough difference

that will make them want to buy.

 

If the difference is there you need the gear to hear or see it. I can see sometime in the future where companies like Warner or AT&T may include not just the HDD Box

but the set itself with their premium packages. Maybe some all in one unit where you haven't got a gazillion wires to connect everything. It can have HD audio as well.

They offer phones when you sign up for providers, why not TV or radio?

 

Any improvements to current formats available need to work "well" and be clearly heard with the gear currently being bought by people.

Maybe a change in standards that gets adopted by those who sell the gear has to occur.

Otherwise the biggest seller of the higher format which is word of mouth will be no more than

a pack of lies to the low information listeners.

 

[blue2blue]

I have to say that, while I've heard more than a few surround systems, I may well -- likely even -- never have heard a proper one. (If Ethan W lived in the LA area I'd be begging him for an invite to check out his surround setup. )

 

I like the idea of a subdued surround mix for naturalistically recorded music (ie, 'live in studio')

 

 

I should also finish my thoughts above: If I could have just ONE wish come true from the Pono hype-fest swirl it would be that we finally leave lossy format audio data compression behind.

 

People stream HD video all the time.

 

I stream 320 kbps via subscription -- and it sounds good and, in the past, with properly home-ripped 320's, while I actually have been able to tell a specific, familiar 256 from a 320 (I was shocked) in ABX testing, I was not able to tell that 320 from the source. However, when I switched all-320 stream providers, I did notice sonic differences between the two sets of streams.

 

Another user of both services noticed the same thing, although his preferences were opposite mine, and he did a frequency scan that showed my new service did not use as aggressive a LP filter above 16-17 kHz. At least we weren't imagining it. And, actually, I did an ABX to make sure I wasn't imagining hearing the difference and I got above 90% confidence level, so, my eyes didn't deceive me, either. At any rate, it made me realize that not all 320 kbps codecs or implementations are the same.

 

 

Anyhow, if NOTHING else, at least Pono has given the excellent, lossless, nonproprietary FLAC format some needed promotion. It's too bad that Apple devices and software still don't support it natively (their ALAC is similar though it seems to have lagged considerably in adoption, presumably because of its proprietary nature)... but it may be that this is the big promo break FLAC needs to get some purchase in the mental marketplace.

[Vito Corleone]

I think surround sound is a lot of fun. With old favorite albums, it can be like hearing them again for the first time. I like the increased separation between the instruments and, since the recordings are necessarily being re-mixed, there are often bits and pieces put into the mix that was never present in the original stereo mixes.

[blue2blue]

It's something I'd like to experience 'right' some time.

[WRGKMC]

The one place quad or surround should have taken off is in cars.

Wound up being a dud because they wanted you to pay double for the gear and the music.

[blue2blue]

Well, fair is fair...

[Zooey]

Odds of success: low. If you can't get listeners to commit to CD quality audio, why are they going to bother with high resolution audio? As more high resolution downloads become available, I think we're going to discover that much of the music sold as high resolution is simply the CD release that has been upsampled. I bet that is going on right now, in fact.

 

As for me, I am perfectly happy to listened to compressed audio on my portable devices and in my car. At no time in the past several years have I felt like lossy audio formats were detracting from my listening enjoyment when I'm wearing earbuds in the gym. If I had to rank what was ruining recorded music, the loudness wars would rank near the top, and digital audio compression codecs would rank near the bottom.

 

EDIT: Regarding DSD, if a recording is tracked using PCM digital audio at any sample rate (what's that, like 90% of recordings now?), what makes a DSD a superior delivery format over PCM at the same sample rate at which the song was originally tracked? I can't think of how it could possibly make a difference.

 

Maybe you could pay the mastering engineer to make 2 difference masters: one for regular CD quality, and one for high resolution. The high resolution masters would retain more dynamic range and would sound better. But guess what? You could easily do that today for 16 bit CD audio. 44.1/16 bit could easily be made to sound remarkably better than it does today without changing formats one bit. Why hasn't that happened?

[Folder]

You know - the whole 24-bit' date=' 96kHz thing. Frankly, I think the push is in the wrong direction - I wish the industry had doubled down on DSD instead of giving up. Going to 24/96 seems like a step backward from DSD, although being realistic about it, I wonder how many consumers wake up and say "Wow, I sure have a hankering to leave 16/44.1 behind...it's totally unacceptable..."[/quote']

 

Hi-res audio will become successful when it becomes the industry standard. There have been two basic standards in the last fifty years. The LP and the CD. The CD was pretty much designed to replace the LP.

 

At one point I thought DSD had a good chance of replacing the CD because they were manufacturing SACDs with a (backwards compatible) CD layer that could be played on a regular CD player but I think they were more expensive than regular CDs and not enough people had players that would play them. I remember seeing the first SACD player in a store when they first came out and they were $5000. That was the first and last time I ever heard DSD.

 

Ironically I just got a DVD player recently and it says it plays SACDs. Do they even make SACDs anymore? LOL

[Ernest Buckley]

You know - the whole 24-bit' date=' 96kHz thing. Frankly, I think the push is in the wrong direction - I wish the industry had doubled down on DSD instead of giving up. Going to 24/96 seems like a step backward from DSD, although being realistic about it, I wonder how many consumers wake up and say "Wow, I sure have a hankering to leave 16/44.1 behind...it's totally unacceptable..."[/quote']

 

The public wants convenience, not quality. I have lost all hope in audio pertaining to pop/rock where mastering labs are putting out butchered products, music sales are a joke.

 

[Vito Corleone]

Ironically I just got a DVD player recently and it says it plays SACDs. Do they even make SACDs anymore? LOL

yeah they do. There are some boutique audiophile labels that make hi Rez SACDs in the US and Japan.

[UstadKhanAli]

The public has always wanted convenience. I want convenience too. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People like to carry their music with them and don't like things that are bulky or clumsy. I think most of us would agree that this is good.

 

So while MP3s may seem a step back to most of you, I consider it a leap forward. Why? When you consider that what it replaced - the cassette - I'll take MP3s any day.

[Vito Corleone]

Actually, MP3s replaced the CD. Which were pretty darn convenient and sounded pretty good. Just not quite convenient enough, apparently.