The Death of High Fidelity - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th April 2008, 06:56 AM   #11
PMA is offline PMA  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
PMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Prague
Yes, the devil is in the details.

You got it well, the major problem of mediocre system is that it does not sound good with hi-resolution and dynamic source. Might be one of the reasons of so heavy use of dynamic compression.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2008, 07:06 AM   #12
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
Quote:
Originally posted by PMA
Might be one of the reasons of so heavy use of dynamic compression.
Currently, compression is popular, with artists as well as 95% of the listening public. Musicians choose compression to make their songs sound good, just as they might choose a Les Paul over a Strat. It's an artistic decision, to make their music sound the way they want it to. Would you go up to Eric Clapton or Buddy Guy and criticise their choice of guitar? "Good solo mate, but would sound much better on a Flying V".

As always, things will change eventually.
__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2008, 07:31 AM   #13
PMA is offline PMA  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
PMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Prague
You speak rubbish, not art, Al. Mainstream pop is no art and taste of masses says nothing about quality. Masses can be easily manipulated, as we seen 70 years ago. It was also "popular".
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2008, 07:37 AM   #14
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th April 2008, 07:55 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by pinkmouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

LMAO. That must nearly be a record.

I agree with rdf that as storage in SS memory becomes even cheaper that high SQ releases will be far more possible and likely, at least by the smaller labels. Larger ones may not bother, or see the market with an interest in high SQ recordings too small for even the small effort it would take to do. I hope this isn't the case.
May not make a difference in mastering quality though for general releases.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2008, 08:37 PM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
unclejed613's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
IIRC some of the popularity of compression is a spinoff from the use of compander "encoded" cassettes back in the 80's and 90's. compression really wasn't used much before that, except for the occasional special effect (the piano chord at the end of "A Day in the Life). then there was a "compander craze", the idea being that the listener who cared about sound quality would shell out the extra cash for a compander, and that the studio could produce compressed material. well, the compression remains, but how many of us own a compander to restore the dynamic range? besides a lot of the consumers out there actually like the compression, or don't know what they're missing. i once saw an article about "Catastrophe Theory. catastrophy theory goes something like this......
you watch your TV every day for 10 years. you get invited to a friend's house to watch a game or a movie. when you come home you turn on your TV to watch the news and weather. all of a sudden your picture is green, really green, and a bit blurry. what happened, did a component suddenly fail? no. over the period of ten years, component values in your TV slowly drifted out of tolerance, and your picture got greener and fuzzier a tiny bit at a time. you never noticed it because your mind slowly adjusted to it. when you went to your friend's house, seeing his crisp color balanced picture "reset" what your mind interprets as "normal". so you get home, and suddenly you see the green tint and fuzzy picture that your mind has been "correcting" for years. same thing with compression. compression when it was introduced actually served a purpose, but people got used to hearing it, and their minds applied it's built-in correction. now if we were to return to not compressing music, most people would think the recording sounded unnatural in some way (but probably wouldn't be able to identify).
__________________
Vintage Audio and Pro-Audio repair ampz(removethis)@sohonet.net
spammer trap: spammers must die
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2008, 08:44 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
myhrrhleine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Avalon Island
My $0.02
More bits will become available as technology allows.
Just as amps compete with 0.002%THD vs. 0.001%THD
There's a limit to how much one can cut price.
Eventually, more needs to be offered.
24 bit rather than 16 bit. Why? because thay can.
192k samples or even 768k samples. Why? because thay can.

got to offer something for the $$$

People may not pay for higher fidelity, but they will pay for more numbers.

768k sounds like more/better than 48k
__________________
Just because you can't hear it doesn't mean no one can.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th April 2008, 08:54 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally posted by myhrrhleine
People may not pay for higher fidelity, but they will pay for more numbers.

I though high fidelity was for those who could think for themselves and not be led by numbers?

Hence the masses own .mp3 players while we own lossless ones
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2008, 07:38 AM   #19
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
Good point, Unclejed.

Alas, compression is not applied in any standard way and is often broken up into frequency bands. Each mastering suite is going to do it differently, even from one CD to the next.

No real way for use to know how to uncompress it properly. Unlike the RIAA curve or Dolby noise reduction or the compander of yore. =(
__________________
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st May 2008, 11:02 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
unclejed613's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
one of the reasons for the compressing of recordings was to overcome the somewhat limited dynamic range of broadcast audio. even the best fm stereo signal has a limited dynamic range. the idea was to compress the audio at the transmitter and expand it at the receiver. since most of the noise sources would be far below the level of the compressed audio, when the audio was "reconstituted" with the expander, the noise from all of the broadcast chain would be reduced to the point of being almost nonexistant. let's say that we have a piece of audio that has 80db of dynamic range. peaks are at +10db and valleys at -70db. let's say that the total noise in the broadcast chain adds uo to -30db. there's a problem here, since the noise in the chain will mask everything from -30db to -70db. so we compress the source material so that the dynamic range is -20db to +3db, then we transmit it through a chain with -30db of noise. after detection and demuxing, we run the audio through an expander that restores the original dynamic range. the audio output now goes from -70db to +10db as it did at the source, and the noise is now more than -10db below the wanted signal. this is the way compression was intended to used in broadcast audio. only problem is that companders didn't make a big enough dent in the market, and people got used to hearing compressed audio. part of the reason companders fizzled out was that they weren't built into receivers, and were seen as another complex gadget. now with the popularity of using DSP in receivers, i think companding could make an extremely user friendly comeback. the receivers already have the necessary hardware built in, and just require somebody to come up with the software to execute it. face it, DSP is now in everything, might as well make good use of it.
__________________
Vintage Audio and Pro-Audio repair ampz(removethis)@sohonet.net
spammer trap: spammers must die
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HIGH Fidelity-amp discussion space2000 Solid State 5 9th June 2008 08:23 AM
The death of high fidelity fernando_g Music 13 8th January 2008 05:21 PM
Nanoelectronics and High Fidelity amsci99 Digital Source 1 8th December 2007 03:31 PM
Nutshell High Fidelity Cloth Ears Multi-Way 2 2nd April 2007 09:04 PM
I coined the phrase HIGH VIVIDITY, to differentiate our amps from High Fidelity ones vax9000 Tubes / Valves 8 31st October 2006 01:10 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2