Petition for High Definition Music Downloads. - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Music

Music A place to discuss the thing we are doing all this other stuff for

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 21st November 2012, 10:54 AM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
ripping, or download illegally (easily, quickly and for free).
Absolutely, looking at our hardwares specs, it makes us wonder why we still have data compressed audio? Why is it a Hard drive is around 500gigabytes to a Terra-byte big, how come we can't download a .wav on our 10meg+ broadband connection?
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 11:06 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Even my old Android Samsung plays me .wav files and has 8GBytes of room! Headphone jack to Aux in on my car stereo
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 11:10 AM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
analog_sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sofia
Quote:
Originally Posted by sometimesuk View Post
High Definition music downloads (24 Bit) of popular mainstream music that people actually want to listen to.

I may be wrong here but i suspect there is tiny minority of mainstream pop fans who care one bit about quality. And the record companies response has so far been logical - cater for the classical and jazz fans first with rock probably to follow.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 11:22 AM   #24
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
Default sorry, 24 bit is a marketing scam

24 bits is pointless - higher sample rate automatically gets you more bits of audio S/N with modern noise shaped dither

thinking 24 bits is a needed improvement in consumer audio delivery is audio innumeracy

psychoacoustic weighted dithers already deliver >120 dB weighted S/N to the ear with 16/44

I'd choose dithered 16/96 all day long over 24/44 or 24/48 on technical grounds - but wouldn't expect any but tiny fractional % / high sigma tail of the population to be able to actually tell in controlled listening though

Last edited by jcx; 21st November 2012 at 11:30 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 11:25 AM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
sorry, 24 bit is a marketing scam
So's the music industry!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 12:06 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
kevinahcc20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Farmington Hills, MI USA
Unfortunately when it comes to product decisions, businesses are much more inclined to focus on P&L than petitions. That explains the current dilemma. Popular music formats, which are predominately consumed via media players and earbuds or over car radios are routinely compressed to death and MP3 quality. That seems to satisfy those customers and the compression and low-rez file sizes offer some business benefits.

Classical and jazz still maintain some focus on quality of reproduction because those customer groups demand and are apparently willing to pay for it, or at least tilt their purchases toward it when they find it.

Until you find a way to present tangible financial rewards that might tempt some of the producers and suppliers to experiment with quality focused popular music formats, the current state of affairs is likely to continue. The problem is only compounded by the fact that the listening habits of many of the earbud and in-car crowd is quickly running them down the path to deafness, which will only increase their demand for compression to fill in the empty spaces where even currently compressed music will fall below their hearing thresholds.
__________________
Kevin(ahcc20)...I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 12:12 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
earbuds
Students spring to mind, walking around with mostly white ones in their lugs. Look at em today, though, a lot of them have ditched their Buds for Cans. My 14 and 12 year old kids hate Buds, with preference to Cans for comfort and quality.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 01:09 PM   #28
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
24 bits is pointless - higher sample rate automatically gets you more bits of audio S/N with modern noise shaped dither

thinking 24 bits is a needed improvement in consumer audio delivery is audio innumeracy

psychoacoustic weighted dithers already deliver >120 dB weighted S/N to the ear with 16/44

I'd choose dithered 16/96 all day long over 24/44 or 24/48 on technical grounds - but wouldn't expect any but tiny fractional % / high sigma tail of the population to be able to actually tell in controlled listening though
i'm going to completely disagree, even with 16bit/384kHz if you use digital attenuation, you will still suffer issues well before 24/48 (of course I would prefer 24/96 or better)

the majority of consumers, not as many audiophiles but many (including myself) use digital volume control, you may trust your dithering implicitly to make up the bits in the hardware, but why do it when its not needed? the hardware is there in just about every persons computer, ipod and stereo. seems like a complete waste of resources in more ways than one and remastering a 16bit version for everything from a 24bit file is hours and money wasted too, its stupid...

when all DACs including the 0.50c ones these days are 24bit or higher and any new equipment will just have it by default, where is the motivation to continue marketing fluff? the engineers all use it to give more headroom in the mastering stages for this very reason, are you saying that the whole worlds audio engineers are the victims of an elaborate plot?

the only reason you can claim that 16bit can do 120dB is because its dithering it up to 24bits or above, yet you think its not needed? sorry mate I normally agree with you, but i'm not following you at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 02:22 PM   #29
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
Default 16/96 for delivery format - not subsequent processing

I wouldn't roll back 24 DAC for playback, Media sw internal wordlength

having digital volume applied to a 16 bit stream it makes sense to send the increased wordlength to 24 bit DAC, not having to redither

but to deliver the information to the consumer's digital playback device at all the most reasonable place to question current 16/44 is on the Nyquist frequency barely over estimates of human high frequency perception
boosting sample rate to 88 or 96 k is the side of the box that is more constraining than the 16 word length
anti-imaging/reconstruction filters are pointed to as possibly problematic – high sample pushes any problems way beyond extreme estimates of audibility

but it does requires some engineering, psychoacoustic knowledge to appreciate the practical "resolution" added by dither and the advantage of increased sample rate, BW to the dither noise shaping

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/Coding2.PDF[/QUOTE]

http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/ (both somewhat dated compared to todays best dither performance - so the numbers given are way conservative)

understanding dither shows that increasing sample rate pushes out both sides of the digital audio box at the same time - to the extent that 24/96 would simply be a waste of the lower 8 bit for human perceptoin


so given a choice I'd definitely push for higher sample rates before greater bit depth - probably too nuanced a position for a consumer campaign - but way better than thinking you actually got something of value when you pony up extra bucks for “hi rez” 24/44

Last edited by jcx; 21st November 2012 at 02:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2012, 03:40 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
KaffiMann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcx View Post
text
Very well.

So we are not only to stop the use of compression in all music, we are also going to make sure recording studios re-write the sw to support dithering properly.

There is a difference in sound quality when rendering music in 24bit/48kHz and 16bit/48kHz. It is easier to notice the small things in detail, and the sound is "cleaner defined"if that makes sense, provided your playback equipment is good enough.
I do have difficulty noting audible differences between 48kHz and 96kHz sample rate though. Just use 96kHz anyway because it has higher potential, filesize is not a subject these days anyway.

Other than that I agree, bit depth and sample rate frequency is the new watt, "more = better" apparently.

Last edited by KaffiMann; 21st November 2012 at 03:55 PM.
  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 Res Downloads SY Music 54 27th August 2014 09:25 PM
"24/192 Music downloads, and why they make no sense" DBMandrake Everything Else 200 3rd March 2013 01:40 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 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