|
I don't think the sound of CDs are so terrible to the point that it should be replaced with a new format just because we can now store sound at higher sampling rates and resolutions. That's just me.
I've heard CDs that have been mastered beautifully and with the right amount of dynamics and superb definition. Part of it is a reflection of the mix itself and the other part, the mastering engineer. Let's compare the sound of the "Smiley Smile" album by the Beach Boys which was "24 Bit Digitally remastered" in 2001 by so on so and the Brian Wilson's "Smile" album which was recorded and mixed the way Brian intended it to sound all along and one of the best mastered CDs I've ever heard. There is no comparison, "Good Vibrations" on the Smiley Smile album sounds...well... with bad ones (Loud, harsh and without definition).
I realize that the source was the original demo reel tape, but that doesn't warrant such a slaughter to the original sound.
That said, I am not suggesting to remain at 44.1/16 but, we could create the ultimate audio format (maybe 192kHz/24) and call the "Hi end" format which can be heard through DVD medium and that's it. We could put behind any doubts as to whether the high end format should be 88.2 or 96kHz or anything below 192kHz and just build a new library of music.
However, consumers like to hang on to their music collections regardless of the size of the medium. I still have, for example, a nice little colllection of cassettes and LPs and yes, CDs. What I feel reluctant about is to buy another album that I have on CD, but on a newer format and start building all over again upon another collection simply because it promises to be the "ultimate sound".
But, keep in mind that I am an older consumer guy. The kids today, some of them all they own is on mp3 format. Many of them have never even heard an LP or at least heard an A/B comparison.
So, before we start rocking the music boat, we must make a compelling and definite argument to the manufacturing industry and mainly to the consumers, especially the young ones.
The sound of the industry, in my view, is driven by consumers, not engineers, producers, A&R people and certainly not mastering engineers. If the product is bad, it doesn't make it out there.
The manufacturing industry only produces what consumers are willing to buy.
True, many consumers know nothing about good sound, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion about the "Loudness War" in the first place.
Moreover, we can't assume that good music means more record sales. There are things that happen to be accepted as better or more commercially saleable than others which are beyond a logical explanation. Still, it has to sound up to a certain quality standard or reach a certain "general consensus" that defines a recording as sounding "good".
This is the main challenge, to change the perception that a CD which was mastered at certain "loudness" constitutes a bad sound and therefore, it no longer meets the "new industry standards".
My fellow engineers, in a world of fast download mp3's and $10 or less album CDs, we are going to have a tough time making a compelling case to move the consumer standards even a notch higher.
I guess we could wait (if it ever happens) for consumers to demand more dynamics and more definition out of music, so that we can make the argument that moving to a new digital format, say 192kHz/24bit (even 88.2) and reducing the levels of all those butchered CDs, is a good and logical step up in sound quality for the "new industry standard". By then, storage size and computing power will be irrelevant.
That said, I look forward to this new renaissance in music sound quality and industry standard...
|