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

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.
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


I hope that MP3 will go the way of the compact cassette, and the sooner
the better.
As storage capacity increases, lossy compression will no longer be required.

One annoying thing about MP3 is that files cannot be seamlessly linked.
As many of my albums do not have a period of silence between tracks
I prefer not to have one inserted by the player.
The only solution I have found so far is to copy a time range spanning
the required multiple tracks from the CD using Goldwave or similar.

--
Eiron.

"Eiron"


I hope that MP3 will go the way of the compact cassette, and the sooner
the better.
As storage capacity increases, lossy compression will no longer be
required.


** But for internet and radio transmission of audio, it will remain.

Situations where the available bandwidth is the crucial limitation, not
storage capacity.



...... Phil

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.

Don Pearce

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.


** Nice example of circular logic - ie using one's opinion to prove an
opinion.


As for canny - classical listeners are
in general older and thus much less prone to purchases based on
fashion and peer pressure.


** So " older " people are not subject to fashion or peer pressure ??

The entire world's advertising industry will be cackling loudly at that
nonsense.


that is why they, in general, have not
followed the MP3 path to any great degree,


** An utter non sequitur.

Using Occam's Razor to cut though Don Pearce's pompous puke -

the explanation is that the MP3 format offers no practical advantages to
most classical music fans.

With the exception of digital radio and internet radio, of course.



...... Phil