doge
Joined: 07/11/09
Posts: 2
|
|
There is a very wide gap between the technology used in studios at recording (anything up
to 32bit/384kHz digital, multitrack) and the poor quality files delivered to users (CD
16/44.1, MP3 and AAC). Higher quality on DVD-Audio and Blu-ray or SACD are severely
crippled by DRM.
What we need is a way to download (with no DRM) any chosen or
possible quality with a focus on PCM 24bit/96 or 192kHz, with pricing adjusted to the
quality of the download.
A broad spectrum of music needs to be made available
in these multiple formats through a good distributor e.g. Apple iTunes.
How can
we make it happen?
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 10746
Loc: Worcestershire
|
|
Quote doge:
There is a very wide
gap between the technology used in studios at recording (anything up to 32bit/384kHz
digital, multitrack) and the poor quality files delivered to users
T'was always thus. in the 1950s there was a
huge gap between the typical studio 1/4-inch tape machine masters and the typically
terrible domestic vinyl record players. In the 1970s we had the same terrible quality gap
between the 1/2-inch studio tape masters and the domestic cassette walkmans. Nothing has
really changed... except that today if you really want 'studio quality' at home you can
have it for a fraction of the price that you'd have paid a few decades ago.
But
the fact is that no sane professional set up is running 384kHz sample rates routinely.
There is absolutely no point or benefit... and more to the point, virtually no one in a
typical domestic listening environment can reliably distinguish a benefit from any
mastered consumer format with greater resolution than 16/44.1 anyway.
Okay, so
MP3 and other data-reduced formats can be damaging to quality, but only if the user allows
it to be and there's no reason for it to be worse than some of the crappy domestic formats
we used to use.
Quote:
Higher quality on DVD-Audio and Blu-ray or SACD are severely crippled by DRM.
Severely crippled? How. I have
hundreds of DVD-A and SACDs and can play them all quite happily whenever I want.
Quote:
What we need is a way
to download (with no DRM) any chosen or possible quality with a focus on PCM 24bit/96 or
192kHz, with pricing adjusted to the quality of the download.
Already available from a growing number of
high-end labels -- many are offering 24/96 and 24/192 as well as FLAC downloads.
Quote:
A broad spectrum of
music needs to be made available in these multiple formats through a good distributor e.g.
Apple iTunes.
Whichever way
you look at it, these 'studio quality' formats will only ever be of interest to a very
small niche market, which makes it unprofitable for something like iTunes to get involved
with. They are more interested in catering to the needs of teenagers who want to download
the latest teenybopper pop for a few pennies in a low quality that sounds aadequate on
their mobile phones.
Quote:
How can we make it happen?
I don't think you can -- other than by supporting the few specialist record labels
that are providing that kind of service directly now.
hugh
--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
It would already be great if the "CD quality" (16-bit 44.1kHz) remained available in the
future. As a delivery format, it's more than acceptable.
24-bit could be
interesting as it allows for more dynamic range and does not require dithering.
But
"more dynamic" is not today's fashion unfortunately. You can often find some remastered CD
versions that are more compressed than the original LP, while the CD has a better dynamic
range than the LP...
Releasing high sample rate music is completely useless.
Today, even during the recording sessions and the production, there are very few
reasons for using 96kHz sampling.
And some people like Dan Lavry explain that
sampling at 192kHz is worse than 96kHz.
For me, "HD sound" is only a marketing
/ salesman / audiophile thing... It's not surprising that Dolby (who are responsible for
the mp3 sound quality associated with "Dolby Digital") have recently released the
so-called "Dolby TrueHD" technology.
-j
|
Bob Moose
Joined: 17/01/08
Posts: 361
|
|
Well, maybe I should delete my post as Hugh's anwser is much clearer (sorry - cross
posting)
|
The_Big_Piano_Player
member
Joined: 13/05/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
I, like most people, would be more than happy if you could download CD quality music,
nevermind 24bit/96kHz.
CD quality is more than adequate for audiophile music
reproduction, it's been available for 25 years, we've all got broadband and big hard
drives and yet, we're only downloading MP3(!)
Me no understand(!)
--------------------
http://www.undeniablydusty.com/
|
ken long
Joined: 21/01/08
Posts: 1904
Loc: The Orient, East London
|
|
Here you go mate.
HDtracks
--------------------
I'm All Ears.
|
Stan
Joined: 17/01/05
Posts: 637
Loc: Dublin
|
|
Quote Hugh Robjohns:
But
the fact is that no sane professional set up is running 384kHz sample rates routinely.
There is absolutely no point or benefit...
Hugh is a known ninety sixer .
And, i know it , he is
challenging us to us our ears.
I say 192kHz is a better audio sampling rate
than 96kHz by 96kHz. By my reckoning.
|
dmills
Joined: 25/08/06
Posts: 1297
|
|
And I say that IF it is done right, 48 is all you need.
My hearing is pretty
much gone by 15K anyway, so why the hell would I want to sample faster then 48?
Now I will be the first to admit that there are processes that benefit from a faster
rate, but if the tools are competently built then they will handle the conversion for you.
96K Might make sense if the conversion is a bit less then ideal (it moves some
potentially funky stuff way above the audible range), but 192 is surely a marketing
gimmick.
Regards, Dan.
--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!
|
dmills
Joined: 25/08/06
Posts: 1297
|
|
The issue with 192k is that you have to trade some other performance off to get it.
For example take the common TI parts, at single and dual rate (48 & 96) they
can arrange things so that the external IO transitions (that cause large current pulses
within the chip) occur while the analogue sections are not doing anything, this is not
possible when running at quad rate (192K) because there just is not time.
The effect
is that the noise floor and the aperture jitter both come up when running at 192K compared
to the lower rates (you can see the increased aperture jitter in the THD spec).
Thus 192K trades extension into the ultrasonic (which we cannot hear), for increased THD
and noise, which we potentially can hear.
Sounds like a loosing game to me.
Actually if we were designing from a clean slate today, we would probably punt
for somewhere around 60Khz as the optimal SR.
Regards, Dan.
--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!
|
Stan
Joined: 17/01/05
Posts: 637
Loc: Dublin
|
|
Quote dmills:
My hearing is
pretty much gone by 15K anyway, so why the hell would I want to sample faster then 48?
It is the increased
sample speed - the how many times we sample a sound a second.
Not the freq. range
of the sampled material, it's all about the passing of time and how many times we capture
it.
The hearing will still appreciate the time accuracy in the detail. For me, it
works.
Edited by Stan (08/11/09 03:18 AM)
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 10746
Loc: Worcestershire
|
|
Quote dmills:
Actually if we were
designing from a clean slate today, we would probably punt for somewhere around 60Khz as
the optimal SR.
Absolutely
-- and that rate was put forward back in the early 1980s as the idea'l standard rate when
the standards bodies were considering what to do in the wake of Sony/Philps imposing
44.1kHz on the world.
60kHz worked with all the video formats and gave more
than sufficient bandwidth above the audible range to avoid any issues with filtering etc.
However, at that time it would have pushed the technology further than was practical at
the time, and so we ended up with 48kHz as the standard professional rate instead.
Had we had 60kHz we'd probably never have been forced down the 96kHz route...
although I'm sure someone would have started the numbers game soooner or later.
Hugh
--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 10746
Loc: Worcestershire
|
|
Quote Stan:
It is the increased
sample speed - the how many times we sample a sound a second.
Not the freq. range
of the sampled material, it's all about the passing of time and how many times we capture
it.
The hearing will still appreciate the time accuracy in the detail. For me, it
works.
I think you may be
confusing the effects of jitter with the sampling frequency. The maths underlying sampling
theory have long been proved correct and complete -- countless other industries rely on it
besides audio and if it was flawed we'd have known about it long ago.
It is
certainly true that there was/is some sub-standard digital audio equipment around that
don't deliver what the technology promises, but that's not the same as claiming the
technology doesn't work.
Equally, I'm sure that some people will prefer the
sound of some particular box running at a silly sampling rate... just as some prefer
analogue and some (apparently) prefer MP3!
But the maths and science is quite
clear. Higher sampling rates (above about 96kHz) inherently introduce significant unwanted
degradations without any demonstrable benefits.
Hugh
--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
steve355
Joined: 02/03/07
Posts: 486
Loc: Stevenage, Herts
|
|
Surely the reason that the upgrade to 24bit/96K or whatever is likely to happen, is so
that the digital player industry can sell an entire new generation of players, and the
music industry can resell your entire CD/mp3 collection to you. Sounds like an attractive
proposition indeed for them. Amazing it hasn't happened already.
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 10746
Loc: Worcestershire
|
|
They've already tried it with DVD-A and SACD, and neither have amassed a significant
market share. It's not really surprising when conventional CD is a near-perfect consumer
format anyway for those who still value quality, and for the rest mp3 is adequate and
convenient.
Hugh
--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
GTD
member
Joined: 21/02/03
Posts: 101
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Quote Stan:
Not the freq.
range of the sampled material, it's all about the passing of time and how many times we
capture it.
Indeed;
harmonics (as well as dynamics) make for transparency. Even the more aged among us
(including myself) can appreciate these factors.
I understand the diminishing
returns of higher sampling rates too though. 60kHz would have been a great all round
'compromise'.
I'd love to know what the futures of music and of audio recording
holds........
--------------------
|
Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor
Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 10746
Loc: Worcestershire
|
|
me too... and I'm planning on sticking around for a while to find out 
hugh
--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound
|
Shreddie
Joined: 16/01/08
Posts: 163
|
|
For most purposes, I don't see the point of recording at rates any higher than 24/44.1 (or
48). The only time I record at 96 or 192 KHz is when I'm sampling something that I'm
planning on slowing down a great deal.
As far as consumer formats go though, I
think the old addage 'it's only as good as the weakest point in the system' comes into
play... Most audio equipment in people homes is of a significantly lower quality than what
most studio owners or home recordists will have. As a result, 128kbs mp3s may be all that
many people need because they won't be able to appreciate (or detect) an improvement over
that on their system. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that a 128kbps mp3 played
on quality gear will almost always sound far better than a 24/44.1 WAV file played on an
iPlop, average teenagers hifi, computer speakers etc.
Personally, I don't like
anything below a 256kbps mp3 and usually use FLAC files for my really rather good mp3
player... Which always gets used with either my monitoring/mixing cans or a pair of
quality Sennheiser earphones. In fact I'm quite often surprised by how poor a sound
quality some people are used to. Listening on some other peoples stuff is like having a
severe head cold, blocked ears and having my head inside a wet cardboard box. In other
words... Crap!
I'm not a huge fan of downloading music anyway, I'd still rather
have the physical CD... It's often cheaper that way anyway!
--------------------
I might hum a bit but my gear doesn't.
|
Gear Reviews
Previous
Topics
Next
Threaded
Multiple Format Audio Distibution?
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Multiple Format Audio Distibution?
