|
|
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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. |
High Definition Audio.
"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 |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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. |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
Don Pearce wrote in message news:49900568.397070406@localhost... 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? With something 188 million iPods sold and then all of the competitive hardware of a similar nature, it would seem that there is a small trend towards portable digital music players. ;-) Furthermore, there are claims that the sales of connectivity and amplification equipment that allow portable players to act as fixed-location players has exceeded that of all other component audio components (including speakers) for the past year or more. I'm not very good at this myself (I said that CDs would never catch on) I purchased among the very first CD players that were sold in my city. and backed the SACD horse a few years ago. I have a *universal* player (SACD,DVD, CD, DVD-A) 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. Analog recording is now so good so cheap that as a practical matter, nothing that can be converted to a line level analog signal is copy-proof. Is there any activity in a different, secure blu-ray format? I'm under the impression that Dolby True HD and DTS HD (which are container file formats, and not just one data format) will be how Blu Ray does audio, other than the legacy formats. There is interest in *universal* Blu Ray players. However, Blu Ray is a physical media distribution format, which makes it very limited. Downloads of audio and now video are a major trend. It appears to me that audio without video is a concept that is fading, slowly. CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system, which is why attempts at higher definition have not caught on. Exactly. DVD-A and SACD were solutions looking for a problem. Quite the contrary in fact, most recent changes in the delivery of music have been heading towards lower definition. There are many conflicting trends. As media and transmission costs come down, extreme amounts of data compression as a trend seems to be fading away. The other night I was listening on a web site that offered "limited resolution teaser downloads of entire songs". I don't know what their format was, but I was tempted to do an analog capture locally and do just *one* download. |
High Definition Audio.
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. |
High Definition Audio.
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 |
High Definition Audio.
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. That's true. I was in the car the other day listening to Radio 3. It took all my moral strength not to get out and walk home (and I was driving). When I did get home I was staggered to find on the R3 website that the syrupy, mushy, hollow medley was Rachmaninov's Symphony no. 2. It could have been a sententious score from a dishonest and tacky film like Forrest Gump. Listening to it was like having one's face pushed into a basin of warmed Coca-Cola concentrate. Not that I'd really consider late Russian Romanticism to be classical music, but still, it's by a dead white European and performed by people dressed all funny. Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
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. In the past, developments in technology: * were often big step changes * required investment in new equipment * came at a relatively slow pace New developments: * are typically more incremental * require more minor investments in new hardware * arrive thick and fast No wonder they tend to be picked up by the kidz. Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
|
High Definition Audio.
In article , Eiron
wrote: 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. I can't see any inherent reason why it is impossible for playing devices to play sequential mp3 files with no gap. Presumably the problem is that none of them bother to do so as the designers/programers presume 'tracks' and 'songs' not movements or sections from a longer work where they may be no gap in the music. Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
High Definition Audio.
In article , Arny
Krueger wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:49910a41.398311562@localhost... 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. Much like that here in a small town in Scotland! I now buy CD and DVD via web/email/etc. Not in a store. However I do regret the passing of a friendly local store with stock you can browse. That said, the nearest physical stores that remain (20 miles away) are stuffed with pop/rock and play this at mind-numbing levels, deterring me from using them. They have almost no jazz, classical, or indian music. No point asking the staff which cycle of VW symphonies they think best. :-) I also noted last week that our library has shut down its CD loan collection. You can still borrow books and DVDs, but no longer CDs. The problem I see in that is the loss of 'try before you buy' for people who may be looking for music outwith their previous experience. However the BBC - and now internet radio - may hopefully help cover that. Slainte, Jim -- Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
High Definition Audio.
Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener. I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
|
High Definition Audio.
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. |
High Definition Audio.
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:50:07 +0000, (D.M. Procida) wrote: Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener. I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Probably true for a large part of the market, but not for those I was talking about. d I suppose this is one of the issues that made me ask about the future. It seems that the way people listen to "classical music" , for want of a better term, do so in a different way and are being left behind by a technology that, understandably, caters for the mass market. The way that mp3 treats sound quality, divides music into 'songs' with silences between, and catalogues the result (in my experience)makes it a poor choice for those listeners. I don't think that the CD will survive much longer, and while I'm sure that "something will turn up" I'm not sure what it will be. Roger Thorpe |
High Definition Audio.
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4993241d.404931515@localhost...
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. Or, one can switch a reasonably high-quality ADC/DAC pair (one example would be M-Audio's "Flying Cow") in and out of the signal path in real time. http://cgi.ebay.com/ item 220354041443, for example. Neither is a trivial matter for a quick home test by the non-technical though. Unfortunately Don, that doesn't keep people you and I talk to every day from thinking that they are experts in the matter. I give points to people like the OP who at least showed some awareness of the limitations of such evaluations as they have done. |
High Definition Audio.
"D.M. Procida" wrote in message ... Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener. I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. That seems to be "revealed truth" in the hate-digital Luddite backwaters of the audio world. It's an out-and-out falsehood. I was just reading one commentator who pointed out that approximately 188 million iPods have been sold to music lovers, with negligable favorable impact on the circulation of the high end ragazines. We are entering the post-CD digital era and a few noisy 10's of thousands are still fighting for the resurgence of the LP and analog tape and against CD. Talk about tilting at windmills! |
High Definition Audio.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Given that pretty well all pop music is heavily processed *after* the studio etc recording to make it sound as loud as possible Depends what you call pop music. Chart bound maybe ;-) - and this apparently helps sales - it would be fair to say the average pop listener has little interest in quality. Should be banned from the BBC. Close down Radio 1!!! -- Adrian C |
High Definition Audio.
Arny Krueger wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in message ... Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener. I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. That seems to be "revealed truth" in the hate-digital Luddite backwaters of the audio world. It's an out-and-out falsehood. Goodness me. Can you tell me (without informing me that I'm a lying, hating Luddite) why you think that it's not true that most people are not very bothered about sound quality? Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
"D.M. Procida" wrote in message ... Can you tell me (without informing me that I'm a lying, hating Luddite) why you think that it's not true that most people are not very bothered about sound quality? One very big reason is that since CD's became popular and widely available, music lovers were no longer limited to the problematical sound quality of vinyl LPs and analog tape. Sound quality at previouisly unobtainable levels became common and cheap for consumers. What people do with digital media is up to them. They no longer can blame the limitaitons of the media. I can tell you from living in one of the Great Lakes states that having a plentiful supply of good, fresh water makes people very indiscriminate about water. The same applies to sound quality. |
High Definition Audio.
Arny Krueger wrote:
Can you tell me (without informing me that I'm a lying, hating Luddite) why you think that it's not true that most people are not very bothered about sound quality? One very big reason is that since CD's became popular and widely available, music lovers were no longer limited to the problematical sound quality of vinyl LPs and analog tape. Sound quality at previouisly unobtainable levels became common and cheap for consumers. No, that is an *assertion* that CD succeeded as a medium chiefly because of its superior sound quality. I'm aware you think that. I was asking *why* you think that. I think that CD succeeded mostly because CDs were more convenient than the existing alternatives: easier to store, play and look after, more durable, and so on. I don't think that they succeeded because of superior sound quality, because all the evidence is that before and since the advent of CD the vast majority of people are quite evidently happy listening to appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record players, warbling cassettes or hideously-compressed MP3 files. On the other hand, most people are fairly quick to ditch less convenient systems when more convenient ones appear. Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
... In article , Eiron wrote: 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. I can't see any inherent reason why it is impossible for playing devices to play sequential mp3 files with no gap. Presumably the problem is that none of them bother to do so as the designers/programers presume 'tracks' and 'songs' not movements or sections from a longer work where they may be no gap in the music. I'm sure you are right. Windows Media Player irritates me considerably by calling all audio segments "songs" regardless of whether they are in fact songs, or whether they are orchestral music, talking books, speech radio downloads, or anything else. David. |
High Definition Audio.
"D.M. Procida" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: Can you tell me (without informing me that I'm a lying, hating Luddite) why you think that it's not true that most people are not very bothered about sound quality? One very big reason is that since CD's became popular and widely available, music lovers were no longer limited to the problematical sound quality of vinyl LPs and analog tape. Sound quality at previously unobtainable levels became common and cheap for consumers. No, that is an *assertion* that CD succeeded as a medium chiefly because of its superior sound quality. I'm aware you think that. I was asking *why* you think that. I've got ears and 37 years of experience listening to LPs and analog tape because there was no viable option. Not only that, but I was around to see how high end audio dealers and ragazines fabricated the myth of LP sonic superiority let alone parity, and CD acceptance based primarily on convenience. I think that CD succeeded mostly because CDs were more convenient than the existing alternatives: easier to store, play and look after, more durable, and so on. OK, so you bought the myth. I don't think that they succeeded because of superior sound quality, Yet, that is their most obvious attribute. because all the evidence is that before and since the advent of CD the vast majority of people are quite evidently happy listening to appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record players, warbling cassettes or hideously-compressed MP3 files. Your account of the evidence leaves a lot to be desired. Here's what really happened: Prior to the advent of the CD, just about everybody tolerated listening to appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record players, and/or warbling cassettes. Even those of us who knew better and had better, were still inhabitants of the real world, and that was how things were and are. Much of the time the sound quality that we suffer with is way outside of our control. The CD made two important changes. They have pretty well banished rubbishy record players, and/or warbling cassettes. We're still often stuck with appalling sound from those other sources. CDs also raised the bar on recorded sound. Before the CD you were stuck with all of the well known sonic failings of LPs and analog tapes, even when played on the finest players around. Now we aren't. Life has even changed life inside cheap music players. Inside each and every one of them, there is generally a really y good analog music signal at the inputs to their amplifiers. Better than that from any LP or analog tape, given a good recording. That's why transports designed for boom boxes can end up in $3,000 CD players. After that, it may be downhill fast. But you can't blame that on the CD. CDs didn't help the crappy speakers and amps on many boom boxes, cheap table stereos, and poor PA systems. CDs did not tune the badly-tuned radios. It would be unreasonable to expect that they would. |
High Definition Audio.
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Eiron wrote: 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. I can't see any inherent reason why it is impossible for playing devices to play sequential mp3 files with no gap. Presumably the problem is that none of them bother to do so as the designers/programers presume 'tracks' and 'songs' not movements or sections from a longer work where they may be no gap in the music. Not only that, there are portable MP3 players that avoid the gap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless_playback |
High Definition Audio.
Arny Krueger wrote:
No, that is an *assertion* that CD succeeded as a medium chiefly because of its superior sound quality. I'm aware you think that. I was asking *why* you think that. I've got ears and 37 years of experience listening to LPs and analog tape because there was no viable option. Not only that, but I was around to see how high end audio dealers and ragazines fabricated the myth of LP sonic superiority let alone parity, and CD acceptance based primarily on convenience. That doesn't answer the question. I think that CD succeeded mostly because CDs were more convenient than the existing alternatives: easier to store, play and look after, more durable, and so on. OK, so you bought the myth. What myth? I don't think that they succeeded because of superior sound quality, Yet, that is their most obvious attribute. To some people. To most people, I don't think it makes much difference. If it did, the CD wouldn't now be losing out to lower-quality (heavily-compressed, played on poorer equipment) but much more convenient formats. If quality were what made the difference, the convenient compact cassette would not have taken the place of 1/4" tape running at four times its speed. Minidisc was (briefly) successful while it proved to be more convenient than alternatives, but lost out when that advantage disappeared. Neither its success nor its eclipse were related to the quality of its sound related to other formats. because all the evidence is that before and since the advent of CD the vast majority of people are quite evidently happy listening to appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record players, warbling cassettes or hideously-compressed MP3 files. Your account of the evidence leaves a lot to be desired. The evidence is all around. You only need to go anywhere music's being played to hear it for yourself. But you can't blame that on the CD. Who's blaming anything on CDs? I'm not even talking about the sound quality of CD, or indeed anything else. The point I'm making is that most people don't seem to care very much about sound quality, of anything, and that convenience rather than sound quality is largely what makes a format a success. You have still failed to provide any kind of reason for believing that CD's superior sound quality is what made it a success. All you do is keep repeating your assertion. On the other hand, I've given several reasons to believe that what appears to determine the success of a format is convenience: * the very poor sound quality that most people seem to be satisfied with * the fact that new more convenient formats of poorer quality are displacing CD as a format * the fact that generally, convenience, not sound quality, determines the success of a format Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
On 2009-02-09, Eiron wrote:
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. That's also my current pet hate with MP3 players. For example, it interrupts through-composed opera intolerably. It's certainly possible to encode MP3s with a "--nogap" setting (LAME) but the number of MP3 players which will reproduce this properly is very limited. I hope more will appear on the market soon. 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. Yes. I run a custom script to assemble tracks for the same reasons. -- John Phillips |
High Definition Audio.
"D.M. Procida" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: No, that is an *assertion* that CD succeeded as a medium chiefly because of its superior sound quality. I'm aware you think that. I was asking *why* you think that. I've got ears and 37 years of experience listening to LPs and analog tape because there was no viable option. Not only that, but I was around to see how high end audio dealers and ragazines fabricated the myth of LP sonic superiority let alone parity, and CD acceptance based primarily on convenience. That doesn't answer the question. Sure it does. I think that CD succeeded chiefly because of its sound quality because its the improvement in sound quality is its most widely perceived benefit. I think that CD succeeded mostly because CDs were more convenient than the existing alternatives: easier to store, play and look after, more durable, and so on. OK, so you bought the myth. What myth? What you said, above. I don't think that they succeeded because of superior sound quality, Yet, that is their most obvious attribute. To some people. To most people. To most people, I don't think it makes much difference. Prove it. If it did, the CD wouldn't now be losing out to lower-quality (heavily-compressed, played on poorer equipment) but much more convenient formats. Bad logic. Even the commonly-used compressed formats are perceived by most people as sounding better than LPs or cassettes as they are likely to experience them. For example, all other things being equal, a given CD will sound better on a boombox than the corresponding cassette tape. Similarly, a given CD will sound better than the corresponding LP on a low quality player that has both LP and CD facilities (they exist!). As you move up the quality scale, the casette will never come close, but the LP might get within a country mile. If quality were what made the difference, the convenient compact cassette would not have taken the place of 1/4" tape running at four times its speed. 1/4" tape was never effectively marketed. It was too expensive to make in genral. It could sound pretty good at 7 1/2 ips, but most recently and most widely it was marketed at 3 3/4 ips to make it more economical to produce and sell, which frankly didn't sound as good as a Dolby cassette. Minidisc was (briefly) successful while it proved to be more convenient than alternatives, but lost out when that advantage disappeared. Neither its success nor its eclipse were related to the quality of its sound related to other formats. Minidisc was never effectively marketed in the US. I still have a MD player someplace and it was a bust. because all the evidence is that before and since the advent of CD the vast majority of people are quite evidently happy listening to appalling-reproduced sound, whether it's coming from over-driven PA systems, badly-tuned radios, scratched records and rubbishy record players, warbling cassettes or hideously-compressed MP3 files. Your account of the evidence leaves a lot to be desired. The evidence is all around. Wrong. I explain this below. I'm not going to repeat myself because. You only need to go anywhere music's being played to hear it for yourself. Been there done that. But you can't blame that on the CD. Who's blaming anything on CDs? I think you need to read your own paragraph. You say "since the advent of CD". My counter argument is most of the issues you raise are unchanged by the "advent of the CD:. I'm not even talking about the sound quality of CD, or indeed anything else. The point I'm making is that most people don't seem to care very much about sound quality, of anything, and that convenience rather than sound quality is largely what makes a format a success. I see plenty of evidencen that people will migrate in the direction of better sound quality provided that obtaining that improved sound quality isn't that difficult. If you're going to the store to buy a recording and your choice is the CD, LP, or tape we already know from real world experience what people will buy - they will buy the CD even at a far higher price. That was the real world during much of the 1980s. You have still failed to provide any kind of reason for believing that CD's superior sound quality is what made it a success. Dimissal on your part is not failure on my part. All you do is keep repeating your assertion. And you're not? On the other hand, I've given several reasons to believe that what appears to determine the success of a format is convenience: * the very poor sound quality that most people seem to be satisfied with Asked and answered. * the fact that new more convenient formats of poorer quality are displacing CD as a format Now you are making the logical mistake of conflating then and now. You started out talking about why the CD succeeded 25 years ago, and now you are talking about a completely different issue that relates to what is happening 25 years later. Another point that you miss is that the actual compressed files that people are buying from iTunes etc., still sound better than LPs or cassettes, especially given the kind of LP and cassette players that most people are familiar with. If you go to high end LP and cassette players, the CD generally still sounds better, all other things being equal. Furthermore, the files people are downloading from iTunes etc., aren't all that bad. In blind tests, even critical listeners can't reliably hear the difference in a blind test. The MP3 and AAC files that people are downloading from iTunes etc sound worlds better than cassettes played on any player, and sound better than LPs played on the players that most people are familiar with. Another point that you are missing is that the sound quality of LPs and cassettes are far, far, far more impacted by being played on cheap player mechanisms than CDs. * the fact that generally, convenience, not sound quality, determines the success of a format Not a fact, an opinion. In the end its a combination of convenience and sound quality. What people are looking for is adequate sound quality in their view. Once the sound quality is adequate in their view, then they will go for improvements in convenience. |
High Definition Audio.
In article
, D.M. Procida wrote: I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. At first many complained you couldn't get the same blurb on them as an LP. Or as appealing a cover. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big selling point. Very few liked the cracks and pops off vinyl. When they first arrived, there were no portables or car units, so they replaced the record deck in a Hi-Fi installation - so physical convenience wasn't much of an issue. -- *Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
High Definition Audio.
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , D.M. Procida wrote: I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. At first many complained you couldn't get the same blurb on them as an LP. Or as appealing a cover. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big selling point. Very few liked the cracks and pops off vinyl. When they first arrived, there were no portables or car units, so they replaced the record deck in a Hi-Fi installation - so physical convenience wasn't much of an issue. Sales didn't take off until portables were available and lps disappeared from store shelves. Sound was still a selling point, of course. Stephen |
High Definition Audio.
"MiNe 109" D.M. Procida Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big selling point. Very few liked the cracks and pops off vinyl. When they first arrived, there were no portables or car units, so they replaced the record deck in a Hi-Fi installation - so physical convenience wasn't much of an issue. Sales didn't take off until portables were available and lps disappeared from store shelves. ** When the first CD players appeared in hi-fi stores in Sydney ( May 83) - there were * NO * discs available to play on them !! After a week, a few CD titles turned up in an import record store. There were then only a couple of CD pressing plants operating in the world and so all discs sold here were imported. The first CD players were very expensive, so the ONLY initial buyers were folk with good hi-fi systems keen to try this new marvel. Within about a year or so the number of CD titles available was in the thousands and cheaper, more basic players began to appear. My impression was that the record industry was *very keen* that CDs take over for THEIR CONVENIENCE - as CD discs were cheap to make, took up far less storage space, were cheaper to freight anywhere, had perfect consistency sample to sample, were not easily damaged in transit nor subject to problems like warping. The rate of customer returns of CDs was very low. All this saved everyone involved lots of time and cost. The appearance of hand held players had almost no effect on CD sales as their numbers were relatively tiny - same goes for in-car CD players. The eventual appearance of portable music centres incorporating CD players made a big difference, by-passing the need to own a hi-fi system with separate CD player. The first generation of these were also fitted with cassette players and allowed copying of CDs to cassette. The previous assumed link between CDs and genuine hi-fi sound was now broken which finally made CDs into a mass market format. ...... Phil |
High Definition Audio.
"MiNe 109" wrote in message ... In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: In article , D.M. Procida wrote: I think that the convenience of the CD, rather than its sound quality, has been the major factor in its success. At first many complained you couldn't get the same blurb on them as an LP. Or as appealing a cover. I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big selling point. Very few liked the cracks and pops off vinyl. The absence of cracks and pops off of vinyl was a major sound quality selling point for CDs. When they first arrived, there were no portables or car units, so they replaced the record deck in a Hi-Fi installation - so physical convenience wasn't much of an issue. Sales didn't take off until portables were available Sales took off immediately. Portables were not available immediately. and lps disappeared from store shelves. LPs disappeared as a consequence of competition for store space. Sound was still a selling point, of course. |
High Definition Audio.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I don't think people are that bothered about sound quality on the whole. Oh c'mon. The fact they were said to be near indestructible was a big selling point. Exactly - that's part of convenience rather than sound quality. Treatment that would ruin an LP won't damage a CD. You can let a four- year-old use an expensive CD player. Daniele -- Thanks to a non-paying bidder, the world has an amazing second chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK). Lucky world! http://search.ebay.co.uk/220356804658 |
High Definition Audio.
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote: However I do prefer commercial CD to CDR/W as I suspect it will prove more physically durable. Absolutely. Some of my earliest CDRs no longer play or have developed faults. I've not had a commercial CD fail - despite having CD from quite early on, although there are reports of this. -- *Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk