The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is it time for a new (preferably higher) standard? Yes? No?
Old 1 week ago
  #31
Gear Nut
 
Uncle Russ's Avatar
Members of this forum often tend to think in terms of ideals; we want to produce the highest quality possible because we know the difference. (I really like that.) In business, regardless of what we might prefer, we must substitute realism for idealism. (I don't often like that.)

A businessman tailors the quality of his product to the demographic he wants to reach and quickly learns the market for a topnotch product (at a correspondingly higher price) is limited. That's why Ferrari sells fewer cars than Honda.

The pragmatic businessman's answer to the question of standards is to deliver just what your demographic needs. If you cater to audiophiles you must go all out. If your product mainly sells through iTunes (where a majority of customers hear only rhythm, lyrics, and volume) your standard need only reflect the best "iTunes quality". Thinking too far beyond that may put us more in the realm of theory than fact...unless you're very accurate and use your gift to avoid upcoming problems. But, in the case of audio or video standards, it's often more safe to be reactive than proactive.

Conclusion: Adopt new standards as your market demands them. If you're too far ahead of the pack nobody will listen. Then, five years later, some mediocre guy will take up your idea, get all the credit, and change the standard. Ask me how I know.

Everything basically simple. People make things complicated.
Old 1 week ago
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Uncle Russ,
on one side you´re right. A businesman don´t want to bring in more effort if it doesn´t pay off.

But just producing in, for example, 24/96 isn´t a big effort. Every converter supports that, every DAW supports that and disk speed isn´t an issue any more as well as disk capacity is so affordable that you don´t really have to think about costs.

I went up to 24/96 some years ago and I don´t want to go back to 24/48 or even 24/44.1. The results are better with the same effort and with the same skills.

A good businesman would go this way every time when he gets better results with the same effort.
Old 1 week ago
  #33
Gear Addict
 
fred2bern's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar View Post
But just producing in, for example, 24/96 isn´t a big effort. Every converter supports that, every DAW supports that and disk speed isn´t an issue any more as well as disk capacity is so affordable that you don´t really have to think about costs.
I think you're right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar View Post
I went up to 24/96 some years ago and I don´t want to go back to 24/48 or even 24/44.1. The results are better with the same effort and with the same skills.
If you work only for streaming yes, but if your clients pay for CD you always go back to 16/44.1 at the end of the process, with your archives twice bigger (96vs44.1) on your storing system.
For example:
24 tracks at 24/96 in a classical music production, 2x3 hours/day, around 150 Go for a day.
4 days of production > 600 Go, plus track boucing, Master 96, Master 44.1 etc.

If you work with several productions on the same time you need big SSDs and a big backup system...
I'm not saying that 24/96 is not better, I just say that - except special cases - you always finish with 16/44.1.

Going from 24b to 16b because of the CD format is for me a bigger problem that going from 96 (or higher) to 44.1.

Last edited by fred2bern; 1 week ago at 07:20 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #34
High sample rate discussion aside, and oversampling standard with most plugins makes the plug-in benefit of high sample rates somewhat obsolete , my biggest pet peeve of compressed formats is the unfriendly way it divides cd tracks for streaming. There is always a small gap in mp3 playback that makes segue movements of a classical piece unenjoyably. Not to mention the time it takes a track to buffer online. I would prefer a format that allows for gap-less playback and the possibility for gapless streaming of multiple movements online. Though the latter is probably a function of the streaming website and not the audio format.
Old 1 week ago
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Kimotei's Avatar
 

I cant speak for all consumers, but here is one perspective from a former pro, now hobby dj: The last 3-4 years ive purchased about 5-600 songs. 90% of that is mp3 @ 320kbps. Its all club music which means most of it has a relatively short life span in my life.

Why not 16/44.1 ?
I come from a long pro dj background since the 90ties. All us djs were music nerds and we used to spend all our money on vinyl. I do still enjoy buying tracks and making mixes at home, just for fun. Though vinyl is to expencive and also to much hassle now. And I actually prefer djing digital now. Minimal techno is the music I purchase and download as its my favorite music. Everything else I stream, mostly from youtube. Most electronic dance music nerds are sort of home djs and purchase songs to dj if only at home, and listen to their mixes on their phones etc like the old mixtape days. Give that to a few friends etc. For a while I purchased some 16/44.1 and flac, but the main problem was all the hassle of tagging and downloading cover art for every single song. For djs this is the downside of flac and 16/44.1 Typically I purchase 50-100 songs/tracks in one go. It was just so much more convenient with mp3s because they were taged and had the cover art automaticly appear in my dj software Traktor. It also transfers perfectly to ipads and iphones Traktor app with your coments and edits, again only possible with mp3s. This led me to doing some audio listening tests as I did not want my collection becoming garbage in some years, like my old 196kbps mp3s are now. After some tests I must say that on loud club music I really struggle to hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s and cd quality files. Tested on my full range highend speakers, in a fully treated room with decent converters.

I wish flac would be the new mp3 at the digital dj shops, or atleast the mp3 standard could raise the limit from 320kbps to something higher.

As of now I dont know what to think about itunes as I do not use it.

As a club music nerd and collector, the pros of the 320 mp3s outweights the CD files by far.

From this marked segment (its actually huge, and these fans usually buy much more music files then regular people who purchase digital for download I think)

I think most people today that are not into djing, or not a full out music nerds, they all stream. Mostly from youtube. Kids today, around 18 dont even care about Spotify or Soundcloud. Its all on Youtube for them.

I would guess today atleast 95% of frequent music listeners below the age of 30 are just streaming. The last 5% who actually purchase and download 100+ songs each year is either music nerds, or djs hobby and pro.

Spotify set to "high quality" streams mp3 at 320kbps. Hopefully soon this will be the standard, and "high quality" will be something like flac. Hopefully this will progress with all the big streaming services, youtube and so on. I have noticed that youtube seems to be changing/upgrading the audio every few years. Probably/hopefully the lowest choice on streaming will end up soon at 320kbps and the "high quality" mode will be something like flac. From this point I think it will stay like that for a long time.
Old 1 week ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred2bern View Post
If you work only for streaming yes, but if your clients pay for CD you always go back to 16/44.1 at the end of the process, with your archives twice bigger (96vs44.1) on your storing system.
I don´t work for streaming so far. Clients get a CD which is better than it was before when I recorded in 24/44.1.
Often I also give them the 24/96 file - and often they are excited about the sound.

A twice as bigger archive is absolutely no point to think about at HD prices so low now.


Quote:
For example:
24 tracks at 24/96 in a classical music production, 2x3 hours/day, around 150 Go for a day.
4 days of production > 600 Go, plus track boucing, Master 96, Master 44.1 etc.
So just take a 1TB HD for each production. Costs you about 65 Euro instead of taking a 500 GB HD each production for 55 Euro.


Quote:
If you work with several productions on the same time you need big SSDs and a big backup system...
I do mostly 24/96 with 32 channels. For that a normal HD (no SSD) is fast enough for recording and mixing. I do all my work with spinning HDs and do not need big expensive SSDs. Only my OS with ProTools HD is on SSD.


Quote:
I'm not saying that 24/96 is not better, I just say that - except special cases - you always finish with 16/44.1.
Try it and you will hear your results also for 16/44.1 are better. Just try it once ....
Especially with orchestras or any acoustic music you will hear the difference when you record and mix at 96k.
Old 1 week ago
  #37
Lives for gear
 

The big problem for marketers and designers of hi-res or extreme audio/video is overcoming the general boredom and ennui in the consumer to it all. In my experience people are fed up with tech in many ways particularly if its flaky to use or setup, unreliable or with a short useful life.

And the overcooked marketing material with it all is quite hilarious. Witness this for example, some of the comments are telling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5UHK4EeM8

I go to audiophiles (read: competent and enthusiastic about tech) places and quite often the audio doesn't lock up or one speaker is out or something doesn't sound quite right or in phase or a buzz is apparent or something. This is occupational therapy.

The more sensible music lovers I know can't be arsed with any of it.

I love audio tech and enjoy the edges. I am building speakers and using multichannel digital xovers and Acourate filters. So while its not 22.2 broadcast, I am a reasonably advanced consumer along the spectrum. I have a 4K TV. But I see none of this enthusiasm or any wish to experiment or tolerate the pissing about in my close circles of music loving friends and performers. Until it is all a lot simpler for folk and reliable and a lot better designed from a UX point of view, I suspect it will go with the dodo.

Also, it is blatantly obvious that, for the consumer, convenience trumps (hate that word for some reason) audio quality, whatever that is. So selling hi-res to people who cannot tell the difference or can only detect a slight difference will be tough, especially if its more troublesome to play.

I am rarely impressed with public audio systems, volume standards are non-existent, and you guessed it, loudness rules in movie theaters, concerts, etc. Even buskers are all amplified now. People weren't taking any notice of them before, so they think, maybe I am not loud enough. No that wasn't it.

The standards people are doing an admirable job. But they have to take control of it all again and make it simple and effective for people and provide fidelity in not only waveform but delivery.
Old 1 week ago
  #38
Lives for gear
David makes many good points above, the consumer market has probably hit saturation level (and beyond) long ago with 'formats and standards'

It's probably a lot easier a sell for HD-type video standards, because a potential buyer can walk into a typical consumer-tech mart shop and see an 8k (or is 12k the next candidate ?) TV next to a 4k TV and decide instantly if the upgrade is worth it, to their eyes. If it is, it's already neatly packaged inside the box...no extra add-ons to buy.

Audio upgrades are a harder sell, because the transducer (speaker, headphone, earbud) has to resolve that difference to a perceptible level...and as many have said here, that's getting harder for a number of reasons....mainly the limits of typical aural acuity (or caring about same)

Standards...formats...the average consumer rolls their eyes and says "don't we have enough of them already" ? The true market for standards is for consumers of encoding devices, people like us here...and even we're getting to be a harder market to sell to !
Old 1 week ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Kimotei, what you write are good points and summing up them it goes all down to "a file format has to be convenient"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimotei View Post
As a club music nerd and collector, the pros of the 320 mp3s outweights the CD files by far.
I made some tests with my automatic ripping machine where I can rip up to 600 CDs in one run. With that I did some testing with WAV, AIFF and FLAC.

Here my favorite format in the end was AIFF. All metadata are part of the audiofile of each song. Importing thousands of songs in iTunes worked perfectly with AIFF.

For me AIFF is as convenient as MP3 or AAC can be and it is supported by every audio player. Also Files with 24/192 in AIFF work fine in iTunes as well as in a mobile player like FiiO. So for me AIFF offers all you like with MP3 for convenience and AIFF offers all for uncompressed PCM from the common 16/44.1 up to 24/192 (and above if you like).

In my view we do not need a new standard. It is all there already for uncompressed (lossless) formats like AIFF (supporting all metadata) or FLAC. Both offering the highest quality with the same convenience you like with MP3.
Old 6 days ago
  #40
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe View Post
I was at Best Buy around the holidays last year. The person in the video sales department was showing me some of the the new 4K TVs. He said people are willing and able to spend a lot of money for video but when it comes to audio they want to do it as cheaply as possible and he said a lot of his clients wanted to get a surround system (5.1) and pay no more than $199.99 for the whole system. The need for a higher quality audio format is somewhat laughable in today's world where a lot of people listen to MP3 128K on $5.00 Earbuds and think it sound GREAT! A few audiophiles may want a better more HD format but it is not, IMHO, a commercially viable option.

FWIW c
So ... they want a picture as good as real life, but having the audio equivalent of watching a 30 line Baird TV
Old 6 days ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I believe that one should record and archive in a format that will be able to be used in the future. Hopefully at a higher fidelity than today. Here I'm working with 24/96 and 24/192 and 24/384. (384 using Samplitude ProX3 Suite+DAD)

I already invested in DSD in the late 90's and sold it when SACD did not gain big traction. I suggest that no one spend ANY big money on DSD again now. Maybe get a Tascam #3000 machine. I can work in DSD 128 here but it is of limited interest. Very limited interest and no one will pay extra for it to be recorded.

I dispute the contention that dsd downloads and hi-res downloads are a growing field. They are not really. They are the same audiophiles who always bought "advanced playback material." VERY limited audience for that.

Hi-res streaming is cool--I listen to TIDAL HI-FI.

Real practitioners should upgrade their a/d and d/a to something currently offered. Even gear from 5 years ago is not as good as what is out now. Some of the best converters are not really talked about on GS or known muchin the United States.
I'm talking about DAD, Acousence, Direct Out, Cantus --are not advertised much.

Many on these boards have never heard really good digital sound. This could be because their converters are not top notch, their playback room is poor or their monitors cannot play back the bottom octave. Maybe the analog output section of their recorder is not very good.

Plug-ins here are not a big consideration.

I seek to record sound with a large scale sound. Wide and with depth. What is available now is pretty good at doing that.
Old 5 days ago
  #42
Gear Addict
 
voltronic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
So ... they want a picture as good as real life, but having the audio equivalent of watching a 30 line Baird TV
...and to further the hypocrisy, many Best Buy shoppers will pay hundreds on Monster Cable power strips and interconnect cables, believing it will improve their lousy audio setup!

(I say this as someone who recently purchased a fantastic 4K TV from the same store, but everything it is attached to came from other sources.)
Old 5 days ago
  #43
Gear Addict
 
voltronic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I believe that one should record and archive in a format that will be able to be used in the future. Hopefully at a higher fidelity than today. Here I'm working with 24/96 and 24/192 and 24/384. (384 using Samplitude ProX3 Suite+DAD)

I already invested in DSD in the late 90's and sold it when SACD did not gain big traction. I suggest that no one spend ANY big money on DSD again now. Maybe get a Tascam #3000 machine. I can work in DSD 128 here but it is of limited interest. Very limited interest and no one will pay extra for it to be recorded.

I dispute the contention that dsd downloads and hi-res downloads are a growing field. They are not really. They are the same audiophiles who always bought "advanced playback material." VERY limited audience for that.

Hi-res streaming is cool--I listen to TIDAL HI-FI.

Real practitioners should upgrade their a/d and d/a to something currently offered. Even gear from 5 years ago is not as good as what is out now. Some of the best converters are not really talked about on GS or known muchin the United States.
I'm talking about DAD, Acousence, Direct Out, Cantus --are not advertised much.

Many on these boards have never heard really good digital sound. This could be because their converters are not top notch, their playback room is poor or their monitors cannot play back the bottom octave. Maybe the analog output section of their recorder is not very good.

Plug-ins here are not a big consideration.

I seek to record sound with a large scale sound. Wide and with depth. What is available now is pretty good at doing that.
DSD does seem like a waste of time nowadays, and I've yet to read an argument that proves it is better than PCM (most prove the opposite).

Plush, I understand the desire to future-proof, but what benefit is there to archiving in 384k, or even 192k for that matter? Even if future playback systems could somehow resolve the micro-detail and expanded frequency range, could human ears even perceive such things? I'm asking seriously.

Regarding new audio standards and such, the things I'm most interested in are improving digital conversion as Plush said, lowering the noise floor, retaining a reasonable dynamic range, and greater acceptance of loudness standards for recording and playback in all outlets, not just broadcast.

EDIT: Regarding the "bottom octave": My monitor speakers are not up to this task, but my Senn headphones definitely are. When listening on headphones, I often hear all kinds of low-bass rumble and grunge on otherwise beautifully-recorded classical releases (HVAC, usually). It amazes me that these things don't get taken care of. Maybe engineers are not checking the mix on full-range playback systems?

Some "audiophile" labels love to advertise that no EQ, compression, or filtering was used anywhere in the process. Unfortunately, that quest for purity makes some recordings unlistenable on systems with full bass response. If you can't have the HVAC silenced in the hall, I see nothing wrong with applying a HPF or some iZotope RX to clean up the low bass.
Old 5 days ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
tourtelot's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by voltronic View Post
If you can't have the HVAC silenced in the hall, I see nothing wrong with applying a HPF or some iZotope RX to clean up the low bass.
I have got to believe that a true audiophile would, most certainly, want to have that stuff "cleaned up."

I pay a lot of attention to audiophilia and live it as much as my budget (and common sense) will allow, but there is an unbelievable amount of BS in that world. Gotta call a spade a spade, right?

D.
Old 5 days ago
  #45
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by voltronic View Post
DSD does seem like a waste of time nowadays, and I've yet to read an argument that proves it is better than PCM (most prove the opposite).
DSD is actually the predecessor of any PCM word stream. DSD (Direct Stream Digital) is a Sony/Philips coined marketing term for PDM (Pulse Density Modulation). Actually the more correct term is PWM (Pulse Width Modulation), since there's no return to zero between adjacent bits, but that's more difficult to envision when explaining the modulation process. The A/D modulation of a bit clock with an analog signal is performed by a Sigma/Delta modulator, while the conversion of a PDM/PWM bit stream to an analog signal is through a Delta/Sigma modulator (DAC). PDM/PCM (the 1 bit variant being DSD), is a complex modulation process yielding a simple bit stream(s) whose density of bits is directly proportional to the percentage of modulation; hence the analog signal level.

The point of all this is the fact that there are currently no manufactured A/D converters, and have not been for the last 15 years that are not Sigma/Delta modulator front ended. All PCM word streams are derived through a lossy post conversion process including decimation filtering, either in the A/D itself, or later as a DAW conversion process.

The same is true with the D/A process, as the vast majority of available DAC chips are Delta/Sigma modulator rear ended converting PDM/PWM bit streams to analog signals. If presented a PCM word stream, the processors within the DAC chip must first convert that back to PDM/PWM through another lossy process.

The drawback of PDM/PWM, and the 1 bit variant DSD, is there is no absolute value represented in the bit stream(s), so it can not be digitally computed, just stored and retrieved. To be made processable in currently hardware and software, it must be converted to PCM.

While there may be few people on this board interested in working (tolerating?) the limitations of recording in DSD, that does not diminish the superior sound quality advantages of recording and archiving in DSD, then post processing in PCM. The advantage of doing so is having preserved the highest quality original A/D conversion for future use as new delivery standards emerge.

I understand the pushback to the above will be "oh, experience has demonstrated you can't hear the DSD > PCM difference...". But think about it in the long term of marketing your efforts and technology advancements.

Tom

Last edited by tailspn; 5 days ago at 05:06 PM..
Old 5 days ago
  #46
Gear Addict
 
voltronic's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tailspn View Post
DSD is actually the predecessor of any PCM word stream. DSD (Direct Stream Digital) is a Sony/Philips coined marketing term for PDM (Pulse Density Modulation). Actually the more correct term is PWM (Pulse Width Modulation), since there's no return to zero between adjacent bits, but that's more difficult to envision when explaining the modulation process. The A/D modulation of a bit clock with an analog signal is performed by a Sigma/Delta modulator, while the conversion of a PDM/PWM bit stream to an analog signal is through a Delta/Sigma modulator (DAC). PDM/PCM (the 1 bit variant being DSD), is a complex modulation process yielding a simple bit stream(s) whose density of bits is directly proportional to the percentage of modulation; hence the analog signal level.

The point of all this is the fact that there are currently no manufactured A/D converters, and have not been for the last 15 years that are not Sigma/Delta modulator front ended. All PCM word streams are derived through a lossy post conversion process including decimation filtering, either in the A/D itself, or later as a DAW conversion process.

The same is true with the D/A process, as the vast majority of available DAC chips are Delta/Sigma modulator rear ended converting PDM/PWM bit streams to analog signals. If presented a PCM word stream, the processors within the DAC chip must first convert that back to PDM/PWM through another lossy process.

The drawback of PDM/PWM, and the 1 bit variant DSD, is there is no absolute value represented in the bit stream(s), so it can not be digitally computed, just stored and retrieved. To be made processable in currently hardware and software, it must be converted to PCM.

While there may be few people on this board interested in working (tolerating?) the limitations of recording in DSD, that does not diminish the superior sound quality advantages of recording and archiving in DSD, then post processing in PCM. The advantage of doing so is having preserved the highest quality original A/D conversion for future use as new delivery standards emerge.

I understand the pushback to the above will be "oh, experience has demonstrated you can't hear the DSD > PCM difference...". But think about it in the long term of marketing your efforts and technology advancements.

Tom
Could you please elaborate on the bold section? I have yet to see any evidence supporting that claim, though it is often made.

I understand your point about the original A/D conversion, where you don't need to record with a low-pass filter as you do with PCM, but DSD64 has massive noise above 25 kHz or so which also would have to be noise shaped and filtered away. If you record at DSD128 or 256 this can be pushed higher, but the file sizes will be enormous.

As I understand it, both PCM and DSD will have quantization errors at conversion; it's just a matter of which way you like your non-linearity served.
Old 5 days ago
  #47
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by voltronic View Post
Could you please elaborate on the bold section? I have yet to see any evidence supporting that claim, though it is often made.
The evidence is in the listening. When compared, which I do all the time when editing a DSD file in a Pyramix DXD project with the original played out through a DSD project, the DXD (352.8KHz PCM) has a sharper and less spacious quality to the sound. It's more obvious in 5.0 channel surround where the spatial cues are more realistic than in stereo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voltronic View Post
I understand your point about the original A/D conversion, where you don't need to record with a low-pass filter as you do with PCM, but DSD64 has massive noise above 25 kHz or so which also would have to be noise shaped and filtered away. If you record at DSD128 or 256 this can be pushed higher, but the file sizes will be enormous.
I don't think I made my point clearly enough. There's no such thing as recording in PCM today, only in PWM, which is then converted to PCM in the A/D converter, or as a DAW post process. It's much better explained in Post #47 by kirkus here:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remo...der-10t-2.html

The noise above 25KHz contained in DSD64 is not a step function. It's still well below -110dB at 20KHz, rising to about -60dB at 100KHz, and is uncorrelated with the signal. It is "massive" at 2.8MHz (about -2dB), but way filtered out by then. The noise energy of the PDM Sigma/Delta modulation does not exist in the derived PCM for its been filtered out by a much steeper, more non linear phase decimation filter creating the PCM conversion.

DSD256 and a eventual DSD512 push the same noise shaped -110dB point out to 80KHz and 160KHz respectively, and yes, do take up quite a bit of space. But a 1TB USB-3 drive is about $60, and will record several 8 hour sessions at 16 channels.

Again, my point is for at least important projects, it's advantageous to record and archive in the highest DSD bit rate available, then post process in PCM conventionally if necessary. At the least, you've kept the family jewels intact for later posibilities.

Last edited by tailspn; 4 days ago at 05:56 PM..
Old 5 days ago
  #48
Gear Maniac
 

All said higher resolution recording formats are nice, very nice when played back in their native format on a high resolution system. One has to be a deaf not being able to hear the difference as the resolution gets higher and higher. The only problem is that if the ultimate destination of your recording project is CD, then all bets are off. For me, I have not been able to find a sample/bit rate reduction method, may it be software or hardware based, that the resulting recording would sound anywhere near the sound quality of native 16/44 format. The sample rate conversion seems to damage the sound so much that I still wonder if it is worth the “posterity” to record in high sample rate if the project is only going to be a CD, or 44khz download.
Old 5 days ago
  #49
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
...The only problem is that if the ultimate destination of your recording project is CD, then all bets are off. For me, I have not been able to find a sample/bit rate reduction method, may it be software or hardware based, that the resulting recording would sound anywhere near the sound quality of native 16/44 format...
Are you saying that a 16/44.1 recording will sound better than the same performance recorded at 24/44.1? And what then is the implication for all the 32 bit floating processing going on inside all modern DAWs? Or do I misunderstand you?
Old 5 days ago
  #50
Gear Maniac
 

Down sample is still a big problem.

I have done many test recordings feeding same microphones into two same model interfaces, one at 96k and the other at 44k. 96K recordings never sound as good as the native 44k once it is coverted back down to 44k, no matter what solutions I used. Of course, 96k always sounded better than 44k if it is played back at 96K.

It seemed you could record in both 44k and higher sample rate at the same time, 44k for current CD production and higher SR for future release. But, that makes editing and post-production cycle very complicated and messy trying to intercahnge different SR recording raw files within same EDL.
Old 5 days ago
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
All said higher resolution recording formats are nice, very nice when played back in their native format on a high resolution system. One has to be a deaf not being able to hear the difference as the resolution gets higher and higher.
Provided one has a higher enough resolution playback system, and that is the big problem. Will the mass market ever have this or be interested?
Old 5 days ago
  #52
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
Provided one has a higher enough resolution playback system, and that is the big problem. Will the mass market ever have this or be interested?

Is it our business to cater to the lowest denominator? I don’t think so. I thought we should always stride to make the best sounding recording available to the listener,(ourselves included) for now and future. That is what we are talking about here. Am I missing something?
Old 4 days ago
  #53
Gear Addict
 
fred2bern's Avatar
 

Finally most of all are ready for a higher definition. The gear exists, we use it since years, no problem.
The main problem is the commercial standard, and finally the ability of the main CD player manufacturers to kill this format.

It could be also a generation thing. All around me everyone like the CD and they are all classical music listeners.
They want the object in their hands, want to have a booklet that is a book, not a .pdf, something concrete rather than a file somewhere on a hard drive. With the CD they feel digitally what they felt years ago with the LP.

When I talk with them about HD streaming I look like an alien. When I explain how better it is, they all look very impressed, but change nothing in their habit.
Most of them don't have the ability to read a HD file on their HIFI system and even if they use computers everyday, the link between computer and HIFI music doesn't exist.
It's more easy to change a TV (wich IS already plugged on the net) rather than imagining a different way to listen to the music.
Those who can do this are today a drop in the ocean.

So Is it time for a new standard? I think yes, since years!
Is the key for this change in our hands? It could be more in the commercial departments of the main big CD players factories. When they'll stop the CD and impose to all a better standard, maybe just a new hardware (a new player like a new TV) to plug in the old HIFI system, another door for us could be open.
Old 4 days ago
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dseetoo View Post
Is it our business to cater to the lowest denominator? I don’t think so. I thought we should always stride to make the best sounding recording available to the listener,(ourselves included) for now and future. That is what we are talking about here. Am I missing something?
You are absolutely correct. Of course we should master and produce our recordings at the best possible encoding format. But when does that end, 768kHz or do we go even higher.

But what's the point, if discrimination at the playback point is not possible beyond the equivalent of 44/16? Sure we can get rid of the CD manufs, and the record companies can force change on everyone.

Last edited by David Spearritt; 4 days ago at 09:54 AM..
Old 4 days ago
  #55
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred2bern View Post
So Is it time for a new standard? I think yes, since years!
Is the key for this change in our hands? It could be more in the commercial departments of the main big CD players factories. When they'll stop the CD and impose to all a better standard, maybe just a new hardware (a new player like a new TV) to plug in the old HIFI system, another door for us could be open.
It's a good point...the CD shops (bricks and mortar, with real employed humans behind the counter) are a vanishing commodity, although for those customers you mention there will likely be a market for a few years to come...however the CD issuing machinery will likely also shrink ?

It would seem to be bad business policy to kill off a sales sector of a viable market (CD's)...at least until you have a viable alternative delivery mechanism which can be forced onto customers ! Using CD's vs LP's as an example, before the recent (small scale) resurgence.

As you write, uptake of downloads amongst this demographic is not significant, and has likely levelled off. They won't listen to mp3's on their cellphones, no matter how easy they are to purchase. Spotify won't necessarily cater to their needs either, although that could change ?

The only adjustment they've (customers) had to make is buying those same CD's online from a warehouse (eg Amazon) or from boutique online/mail order CD companies who are happy to produce small runs of CD's. The smart musicians/orchestras/labels will try to make material available in the widest variety of formats...even if the humble antiquated CD becomes the most costly of those.

Many of the concerts I record of visiting musicians still have the CD table near the entrance door, and the income from these sales (and the word of mouth vibe it generates long after the concert) is still a welcome if small addition to the musicians' pockets.

For those audiences, the fact that the musician or ensemble has a CD for sale still 'means something'....just as the t-shirt merch sales table still figures prominently in the popular realm.
Old 4 days ago
  #56
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyMac View Post
I wouldn't call the UK market tech-forward, but I'd say at least 60% of people I know have a 4K screen somewhere in the home.

We have enough standards. 24bit48k would be great for streaming services to adopt.

I like 24/96 but until EVERYTHING is at least 24/48 I'm not holding my breath.
You know that 48khz in comparison to 44.1khz gives you 2 1/2 notes more in the most upper octave where is... nothing but hi-frequency noise at best??? And the speakers dont get it too... or do you want to boost that "range", so that every idiot knows "WOW, its 48khz!!!"

The same goes for the 96khz BS. Unless you have to entertain a bunch of bats. What we need is higher numbers, higher ratings, tremendous, beautiful high numbers and ratings. :-(((

Sorry, what you said is

At best.
Old 4 days ago
  #57
Gear Maniac
 
whippoorwill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe View Post
You know that 48khz in comparison to 44.1khz gives you 2 1/2 notes more in the most upper octave where is... nothing but hi-frequency noise at best??? And the speakers dont get it too... or do you want to boost that "range", so that every idiot knows "WOW, its 48khz!!!"

The same goes for the 96khz BS. Unless you have to entertain a bunch of bats. What we need is higher numbers, higher ratings, tremendous, beautiful high numbers and ratings. :-(((

Sorry, what you said is

At best.
Aha, no the problem is much more complicated than that.
Frequencies above the nyquist rate fold back down into audibility.
Drums and many instruments create harmonic partials above 22.05khz (up to 40/50khz easily!) and this can fold back to create weird distortion down to 5khz or lower!
Creating brickwall filters at 22.05khz will either have minimum phase changes which means that there would be a droop in high end response easily down into the audible region or, much more likely, a brickwall filter with extreme phase changing into the audible spectrum, this also degrades the harmonic partials of sounds. Phase is almost entirely analogous to depth for me.

Multiple scientific papers prove that we can also experience frequencies above and below what we can hear. The gamelan was shown to sound far more realistic with frequencies above what we hear than without and our body can experience vibrations down to roughly 7hz. That energy can exist on tape and vinyl as well.

Plus, my pet bat is always happier when I listen to 96khz recordings...
Old 4 days ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Archive the master recordings in the best available format; some day some engineer will be going back to them, the same way we have done in the last few decades - digitizing master tapes to re-issue old LPs on CD. What that format is will be a moving target, but lots of options are mentioned in this thread. THAT is the 'new' (and ever-evolving) standard we should chase.

As far as the music consumer goes, 44.1/16 already exceeds the requirements of 99% of them. Spotify and iTunes, etc. have demonstrated this. The other 1% have always chased the audiophile ideal and will continue to do so. They are in lockstep with the Mastering standards. Until the marketing mavens manage to sell the public something new, media distribution is already as good as we need or want - hence 4K video with $100 crappy 5.1 systems. We live in interesting times...

Lots of good discussion in this thread. And no vitriol.
Old 4 days ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 

A mountain of sales speak BS abounds in discussions pertaining to bit rate and sampling however pragmatical realities exist between measurable VxS perceivable. The 32FP bit rate deployed with Digico "D" pres and processing in Digigrid/Waves LV1 system produces a live world class aural clarity anyone can identify. It matters not whether it is with my Grado SR325s, KV2 ES 4 way FOH stacks or EX10 wedges: the sonic difference is remarkable. Perhaps we need to consider the possibility of raising the expectation of our given market by providing a live performance baseline featuring elevated sonic quality. Certain genres are sonically irrelevant and oblivious to enhanced quality however most live performance can and will benefit from the effort to deploy higher standards. As previously mentioned audiophile pursuits are all to often judged with disjointed, poorly assembled, systems that appear to be more trouble than they are worth. When auto makers will include a premium system that will play FP32/48K USB3 flash sticks we will be on our way: but the marketplace will have to know the difference before it will happen.
Hugh
Old 4 days ago
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
More than 20 years ago, Rupert Neve proved that we PERCEIVE the influence of high frequencies on audible frequencies. In live demonstrations with some signal generators and oscilloscopes, Mr. Neve showed how the assembled audience could hear the influence of a 50kHz. tone modulated on to a steady state tone at 10kHz.

I was there.

When complex harmonics are mixed with audio material in the 20 Hz-20kHz. range, the harmonics influence the sound.

So recording at high rates does matter.

Long ago Deutsche Grammophon tested DSD and high rate PCMin a shoot out.
They abandoned DSD and SACD recording after not being able to tell the difference.

A DSD recording does not carry the emotion of the performance to the listener better than a PCM recording.

Last edited by Plush; 4 days ago at 08:51 PM..
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump