Without starting a debate about whether HD audio is really needed, would
anyone here like to attempt a prediction of the likely sound carrier of
the future?
I'm not very good at this myself (I said that CDs would never catch on)
and backed the SACD horse a few years ago. I can see that Dolby True HD
and DTS HD are likely candidates for physical media, however the
copy-proof characteristics of SACD were what I thought would make it a
winner for the publishers. Is there any activity in a different, secure
blu-ray format?
Roger Thorpe

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:25:37 +0000, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Without starting a debate about whether HD audio is really needed, would
anyone here like to attempt a prediction of the likely sound carrier of
the future?
I'm not very good at this myself (I said that CDs would never catch on)
and backed the SACD horse a few years ago. I can see that Dolby True HD
and DTS HD are likely candidates for physical media, however the
copy-proof characteristics of SACD were what I thought would make it a
winner for the publishers. Is there any activity in a different, secure
blu-ray format?
Roger Thorpe

CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system, which is why attempts at higher definition have not caught on.
Quite the contrary in fact, most recent changes in the delivery of
music have been heading towards lower definition.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system, which is why attempts at higher definition have not caught on.
Quite the contrary in fact, most recent changes in the delivery of
music have been heading towards lower definition.

d
Yes, I've got to admit that I'm sort of sceptical, but I have compared
SACD and CD with mixed results. I THOUGHT that high strings were less
harsh and that cymbals were better, but that could just be prejudice
(not a blind test) and the result of something like noise shaping for
instance.
I'm not sure how rapid the adoption of mp3 is for classical music is. It
strikes me that this is the one area where physical media might survive
longer, with the importance of the sleeve notes, particularly the
libretto. But when the CD shops go, I suppose all that will go too.
Roger Thorpe

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:47:34 +0000, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system, which is why attempts at higher definition have not caught on.
Quite the contrary in fact, most recent changes in the delivery of
music have been heading towards lower definition.

d
Yes, I've got to admit that I'm sort of sceptical, but I have compared
SACD and CD with mixed results. I THOUGHT that high strings were less
harsh and that cymbals were better, but that could just be prejudice
(not a blind test) and the result of something like noise shaping for
instance.

It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD. You will hear
differences, but they are nothing to do with the medium, but rather
the mastering of the recording. SACD releases are, I'm afraid, rather
closely associated with the "smiley face" eq curve which places
greater emphasis on extreme bass and treble. The result is a sound
with a little more fizz and thump which can in the short term sound
better - it soon gets tiring though, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure how rapid the adoption of mp3 is for classical music is. It
strikes me that this is the one area where physical media might survive
longer, with the importance of the sleeve notes, particularly the
libretto. But when the CD shops go, I suppose all that will go too.
Roger Thorpe

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
[...]

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.


Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Rob

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:40:06 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
[...]

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.


Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Rob


Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it. As for canny - classical listeners are
in general older and thus much less prone to purchases based on
fashion and peer pressure. that is why they, in general, have not
followed the MP3 path to any great degree, and have stopped at the
audio pinnacle which is CD. I make no comment on your (men?)
insertion.

d

Rob wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
[...]

In the past the classical listener was always the early adopter,
driving the technology forwards. That situation existed up to and
including the CD. But the classical listener is generally a little
more intelligent and canny than other music followers, and since the
trend moved away from increasing quality, he has refused to follow.
The early adopters now are generally children listening to highly
compressed pop.


Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Baroque and Renaissance music is the thing.
The 'dumbing down' started in the late eighteenth century. :-)

--
Eiron.

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Where on earth do you get hold of the notion that people (men?) who
listen to classical music are 'more intelligent and canny' than other
music genre followers?!

Given that pretty well all pop music is heavily processed *after* the
studio etc recording to make it sound as loud as possible - and this
apparently helps sales - it would be fair to say the average pop listener
has little interest in quality. Most classical music lovers would be
horrified if the same techniques were applied to that. And would return
the recording as unusable.

--
*If at first you do succeed, try not to look too astonished.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Don Pearce wrote in message news:49910a41.398311562@localhost...

It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD. You will hear
differences, but they are nothing to do with the medium, but rather
the mastering of the recording. SACD releases are, I'm afraid, rather
closely associated with the "smiley face" eq curve which places
greater emphasis on extreme bass and treble. The result is a sound
with a little more fizz and thump which can in the short term sound
better - it soon gets tiring though, I'm afraid.

A relevant comparison that is easy to do, which involves playing a SACD or
DVD-A. Intermittently and under listener control t a device is inserted
that transcodes the "Hi rez" data into CD format. This has been described in
at least two AES papers, and the result was that experienced listeners could
*not* detect the insertion of the transcoder in a blind test.

This test has also been done with live analog music in a recording studio on
several occasions. Same results.

I'm not sure how rapid the adoption of mp3 is for classical music is. It
strikes me that this is the one area where physical media might survive
longer, with the importance of the sleeve notes, particularly the
libretto. But when the CD shops go, I suppose all that will go too.

Brick-and-mortar stores selling music only or music primarily, have
completely disappeared in most parts of the US. Pre-recorded media is still
sold over the web or in regional superstores.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 07:37:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD. You will hear
differences, but they are nothing to do with the medium, but rather
the mastering of the recording. SACD releases are, I'm afraid, rather
closely associated with the "smiley face" eq curve which places
greater emphasis on extreme bass and treble. The result is a sound
with a little more fizz and thump which can in the short term sound
better - it soon gets tiring though, I'm afraid.

A relevant comparison that is easy to do, which involves playing a SACD or
DVD-A. Intermittently and under listener control t a device is inserted
that transcodes the "Hi rez" data into CD format. This has been described in
at least two AES papers, and the result was that experienced listeners could
*not* detect the insertion of the transcoder in a blind test.

Yes, I know that one - one can also record the line out from the SACD
player onto a CD with similar results provided it is done well.
Neither is a trivial matter for a quick home test by the non-technical
though.

d