http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2L-Founder-blu-ray-audio-future-1652.shtml

As an audiophile, I'd like to see this happen, even as much as I love SACD and DSD, I think Blu-ray has a stronger chance of succeeding where SACD and DVD-A failed.

Why? Other than its larger capacity, what advantages does BD have over DVD-A? It is questionable whether anyone can hear the difference between 7.1 multichannel at 96Khz/24 and 192Khz/24. Dogs maybe, but not humans. I suspect the listening room will have far more influence over the perceived sound than those bitrate differences. Of course with 2 channel there will be no difference since both would probably use 192khz/24 bits. Don't get me wrong, I am all for high resolution audio. But IMO SACD and DVD-A failed because no one but paid audio mag hacks and a few deluded (IMO) golden ear types claimed to hear a noticeable improvement over high quality red book CD (most popular CDs are poorly recorded and mastered compared to what the format is capable of). And this is even beside the fact that BD has yet to supplant DVD let alone CD as a popular format. And note that even the 2L Founder guy finds the BD copy protection a handicap.

To this, I say "yeah right". They already tried this with SACD and DVD-AUDIO. The common consumer flat out does NOT care.

I'm game.. Bring on some modern "Fusion" music releases...

I'm a fuse head for sure. :)

C'mon. Can't we have a single thread about quality without the same people turning it into an attack on a format?

Considering no one's talking about this supplanting CDs (in fact, the article and interview go out of their way to talk about audiophiles), the strawman anti-format arguments are unnecessary, as are the insulting of audiophiles without any evidence to back it up.

I believe Blu-ray has a real chance to be the next high end audio format. The one simple reason is player penetration. There are already more BD players sold in the U.S. than dedicated SACD and DVD-Audio players combined were sold to date. No it is not going to replace mp3s but there is an older consumer(ie over 30) who still desires a physical format for music.

Why? Other than its larger capacity, what advantages does BD have over DVD-A? It is questionable whether anyone can hear the difference between 7.1 multichannel at 96Khz/24 and 192Khz/24. Dogs maybe, but not humans. I suspect the listening room will have far more influence over the perceived sound than those bitrate differences. Of course with 2 channel there will be no difference since both would probably use 192khz/24 bits. Don't get me wrong, I am all for high resolution audio. But IMO SACD and DVD-A failed because no one but paid audio mag hacks and a few deluded (IMO) golden ear types claimed to hear a noticeable improvement over high quality red book CD (most popular CDs are poorly recorded and mastered compared to what the format is capable of). And this is even beside the fact that BD has yet to supplant DVD let alone CD as a popular format. And note that even the 2L Founder guy finds the BD copy protection a handicap.

Blu-ray is now the industry standard for hd video packaged media. This means that it will have acceptance and adoption.

DVD-A and SACD never made it very far and are now irrelevant. Exactly why is unclear. But, if there is any interest at all in high resolution audio in the marketplace, Blu-ray will make it possible.

WRT BD copy protection, this is also debatable. Does copy protection help or hinder distribution? While there are two commonly stated points of view about this, I am not certain. When I see someone with 100's of ripped CD's and DVD's, it does make me wonder if perhaps the studios don't have a point.

I believe Blu-ray has a real chance to be the next high end audio format. The one simple reason is player penetration. There are already more BD players sold in the U.S. than dedicated SACD and DVD-Audio players combined were sold to date. No it is not going to replace mp3s but there is an older consumer(ie over 30) who still desires a physical format for music.

I agree. I think the main reasons why people didn't care about DVD-Audio/SACD is the paucity of mainstream content and the fact that not many DVD players supported either format to their fullest ability. Blu-ray can easily address both points.

I personally find well-done CDs to be of great quality, but it's mostly the multichannel aspect that draws me towards the high resolution formats.

C'mon. Can't we have a single thread about quality without the same people turning it into an attack on a format?

Considering no one's talking about this supplanting CDs (in fact, the article and interview go out of their way to talk about audiophiles), the strawman anti-format arguments are unnecessary, as are the insulting of audiophiles without any evidence to back it up.
Agreed. Many of us audio "hacks" (and audiophiles, which I'd consider myself to be) hoped that either DVD-A or SACD would succeed so we'd be able to enjoy the music of our favorite artists at home in a way that transcended that possible by standard CD. I still love putting on Roxy Music "Avalon" on SACD or Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" on DVD-Audio and just chilling out and listening, *BUT* there are a few other albums I'd like to enjoy with comparable quality which never made it onto either format.

Now Blu-ray has the storage capacity and codecs necessary to do what DVD-Audio or SACD also *could* have done had the record labels come on board more aggressively and a unified format been agreed upon earlier in the format war. Duplication prices are coming down reasonably quickly as more Blu-ray pressing plants come online. Now let's hope at least a few more studios come on board with music on Blu-ray because I want my music in high quality surround and I want it NOW.

-CB

For now Blu-ray has a shot because poeple like video. Many DVD-A discs had slideshows and graphics just to apease the video lovers.

We are already seeing concert and othe music video BDs.

Of course I think that "high-end" audio will always be a niche, so the vast majority of people will buy MP3s, CDs and digital downloads. In the end, digitally downloaded audio will win out and people will have media servers ranging from iPods to HTPCs...no clunky discs.

Not sure how all these formats stack up to each other.
Would WMA lossless and WAV lossless not actually be 'lossless' since DVD-A and SACD seem to be more 'more "true" to the source.'

And Ive noticed theres an increasing trend of artists releasing dvds(music videos) with music cds. Could BD-A combine the two(video and audio), or do the tracks have to be on seperate layers?

DVD-A and SACD never made it very far and are now irrelevant. Exactly why is unclear.

It was called the iPod.

But, if there is any interest at all in high resolution audio in the marketplace, Blu-ray will make it possible.

I think you still have the iPod factor working against this, sadly.

WRT BD copy protection, this is also debatable. Does copy protection help or hinder distribution? While there are two commonly stated points of view about this, I am not certain. When I see someone with 100's of ripped CD's and DVD's, it does make me wonder if perhaps the studios don't have a point.

That depends on where they got the ripped content from. I've ripped about 1/2 of my music collection and will likely start ripping my movie collection as well. Why can't I rip (to my own machines) content I've paid for and playback as I please anywhere in my home without carrying around the disc?

Not sure how all these formats stack up to each other.
Would WMA lossless and WAV lossless not actually be 'lossless' since DVD-A and SACD seem to be more 'more "true" to the source.'
A "lossless" codec simply means that nothing is lost *in the file* during encoding and decoding. It's like a zip file. Word doc comes in, gets zipped up to save space, gets unzipped and is an exact copy of the original. FLAC, Dolby TrueHD, Apple Lossless, DTS-HD MA all work roughly the same way (though all use different algorithms and have different specs regarding channels and sampling rates) - they compress a huge 2-channel or multi-channel PCM file into a smaller compressed file for more efficient storage and lower bandwidth delivery without losing any details in the original recording. When expanded back into its original PCM file, it's identical to the original.

What makes Blu-ray different than, say DVD-Audio is that there's roughly 6X the storage capacity on a dual layer Blu-ray disc than there is on a dual layer DVD, so this leaves you a LOT of room for multi-channel music, in even higher bit word/higher sampling rates than were possible even with DVD-Audio and much better than was available with the 2-channel CD format.

Greater bit word depth and sampling rate frequencies generally translate into a smoother, more transparent, less brittle sound with greater dynamic range and extended frequency response. There is a point of diminishing returns (as with anything) but 24 bit/96KHz sound is demonstrably better than CD's 16bit/44.1Khz format on a decent system. Plus you have the extra channels you can use, which can definitely improve the depth and breadth of the soundstage and the sense of immersion, even in modest systems. So yes, DVD-A or Blu-ray with DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD is "truer" to the source than an Apple Lossless file, but only if the DVD-A master used a higher bit word and/or higher sampling rate (assuming the recording itself and everything else was equal).

As to whether stereo or multi-channel sound is "better," I'm not going to touch that. I've heard excellent examples of each and enjoy both when done well.

And Ive noticed theres an increasing trend of artists releasing dvds(music videos) with music cds. Could BD-A combine the two(video and audio), or do the tracks have to be on seperate layers?
Absolutely. A Blu-ray Disc producer has a certain amount of flexibility as to how much of the disc to allocate to video material and how much to allocate to audio. If there's little or no video material, then you can use most of the disc for audio. But you could fit an entire album at 24/192 5.1 or even 24/192 7.1 channels and still have plenty of room for music videos, even in high definition.

And you might as well include the digital copies on there too, once enough people have Blu-ray Disc drives on their computers so they can actually use them.

-CB

C'mon. Can't we have a single thread about quality without the same people turning it into an attack on a format?

Considering no one's talking about this supplanting CDs (in fact, the article and interview go out of their way to talk about audiophiles), the strawman anti-format arguments are unnecessary, as are the insulting of audiophiles without any evidence to back it up.

???

The author does mention optimism that this could supplant CDs. As far as insulting of audiophiles in this thread, where's that at?



Downloaded MP3s are what's truly supplanting CDs. Things are going backwards, convenience over quality. Many in the 30 and under crowd are selling off their CDs and listening to them off their hard drives or iPods. Auctions listing such reasons are becoming increasingly common on eBay as people unload their collections. More for me, I guess.

Blu-ray is now the industry standard for hd video packaged media. This means that it will have acceptance and adoption.

DVD-A and SACD never made it very far and are now irrelevant. Exactly why is unclear. But, if there is any interest at all in high resolution audio in the marketplace, Blu-ray will make it possible.

The reason is not the iPod but the fact that you could only play the music in your home, you couldn't listen to it in the car or anywhere else you didn't have a SACD or DVD player. There were some hybrid SACDs that could be played in CD player as well but those were few and far between.

???

The author does mention optimism that this could supplant CDs.No, he says that audiophiles are looking for a replacement for CDs, not consumers as a whole.
As far as insulting of audiophiles in this thread, where's that at?The post by dsmith901 where he calls audiophiles "hacks" and "deluded".

No, he says that audiophiles are looking for a replacement for CDs, not consumers as a whole.
The post by dsmith901 where he calls audiophiles "hacks" and "deluded".
I think "hacks" was a reference to writers in the field since we're all clearly paid off by the megalithic corporate conglomerates like Sony, Warner and Panasonic who control all the media outlets with their free spending of advertising dollars and lavish junkets.

If only.

-CB

A "lossless" codec simply means that nothing is lost *in the file* during encoding and decoding. It's like a zip file. Word doc comes in, gets zipped up to save space, gets unzipped and is an exact copy of the original. FLAC, Dolby TrueHD, Apple Lossless, DTS-HD MA all work roughly the same way (though all use different algorithms and have different specs regarding channels and sampling rates) - they compress a huge 2-channel or multi-channel PCM file into a smaller compressed file for more efficient storage and lower bandwidth delivery without losing any details in the original recording. When expanded back into its original PCM file, it's identical to the original.

What makes Blu-ray different than, say DVD-Audio is that there's roughly 6X the storage capacity on a dual layer Blu-ray disc than there is on a dual layer DVD, so this leaves you a LOT of room for multi-channel music, in even higher bit word/higher sampling rates than were possible even with DVD-Audio and much better than was available with the 2-channel CD format.

Greater bit word depth and sampling rate frequencies generally translate into a smoother, more transparent, less brittle sound with greater dynamic range and extended frequency response. There is a point of diminishing returns (as with anything) but 24 bit/96KHz sound is demonstrably better than CD's 16bit/44.1Khz format on a decent system. Plus you have the extra channels you can use, which can definitely improve the depth and breadth of the soundstage and the sense of immersion, even in modest systems. So yes, DVD-A or Blu-ray with DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD is "truer" to the source than an Apple Lossless file, but only if the DVD-A master used a higher bit word and/or higher sampling rate (assuming the recording itself and everything else was equal). Interesting, never thought about using the PS3's SACD function but I think Ill try it out now. MJ's thriller will be my first buy.

Absolutely. A Blu-ray Disc producer has a certain amount of flexibility as to how much of the disc to allocate to video material and how much to allocate to audio. If there's little or no video material, then you can use most of the disc for audio. But you could fit an entire album at 24/192 5.1 or even 24/192 7.1 channels and still have plenty of room for music videos, even in high definition. Ok, I was wondering because I read DVD-A had a seperate layer for high res audio, and another layer for regular dvd players. I wasnt sure if video audio would somehow need to be on a different layer in BD's case.

And you might as well include the digital copies on there too, once enough people have Blu-ray Disc drives on their computers so they can actually use them.

-CBThat I think will be the determining factor. BD-A wont be very convenient if people arent able to take the audio and convert it to a format their ipod, car stereo etc. can recognize.

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/2L-Founder-blu-ray-audio-future-1652.shtml

As an audiophile, I'd like to see this happen, even as much as I love SACD and DSD, I think Blu-ray has a stronger chance of succeeding where SACD and DVD-A failed.


Interestingly, while I did not intend it to be that way, most of my Blu ray collection is music (i.e. concerts) based. I'd readily buy my favorite artists on Blu ray if possible. Music has more repeat playback value than movie to me. I must have listened to the Dave Matthews/Tim Reynold, Bruce Springsteen and Dave Gilmour Blu rays at least a dozen times each :)

The post by dsmith901 where he calls audiophiles "hacks" and "deluded".

I believe you were deluded into inferring more than what he wrote :)

He wrote about (some) audio mag hacks (which IMO there are) and a few deluded golden ear types (which again IMO there are). Remember, there are people who claim to hear a difference between lossless and uncompressed audio in their home set up. Technically, to be able to do so is being deluded. No? :eek:

If 5.1 lossless audio takes on average 2-4gb on BD release and most music is 2.0, then why is it necessessary to have 25GB reserved for it?

Couldn't you just do this with DVD-5? Oh thats right, they tried it and it failed.

Last I checked, CDs were lossless, weren't they?

If you really wanted to get crazy you could always just release the music in MP3 in 320kbits in 2.0 on a CD.

Just another Bluray is great spin article. Rah Rah Rah! Go Blu you can do it! Rah Rah Rah!

I wish they would just stop this non-sense spin agenda and just get the price in line where mainstream people will actually buy it.

I will say this though. For concerts, it is great, but even concerts still end up often being in just 2.0.

The reason is not the iPod but the fact that you could only play the music in your home, you couldn't listen to it in the car or anywhere else you didn't have a SACD or DVD player. There were some hybrid SACDs that could be played in CD player as well but those were few and far between.

It was the iPod and its ability to carry around a library of your favorite discs everywhere you go.

I think this can work in a limited way.

1. Include digital version that can be ripped.

2. Include HD music videos

3. Audio in lossless 5.1.

4. Include lots of special bonus materials

5. Use BD live to let people buy concert tickets and other merchandise.

6. Include a Kareoke version of the most popular tunes

Other gimmicks to fill up the disk :)

It was called the iPod.

I think you still have the iPod factor working against this, sadly.

That depends on where they got the ripped content from. I've ripped about 1/2 of my music collection and will likely start ripping my movie collection as well. Why can't I rip (to my own machines) content I've paid for and playback as I please anywhere in my home without carrying around the disc?

iPod <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 7.1 lossless for those that don't live on stereo only (guessing 95% only use iPod with earbuds or BT)

As a responsible adult you rip for only your personal usage, then your teenage son procedes to copy from your AV server to his PC and host a bit-torrent. At least thats what all media producers fear.

After further consideration I will offer this addendum to my original comments. The large (potential) capacity of multilayer BD discs do offer something that right now only HDD servers offer - convenient storage of a sizeable music library, and they could do so without all the hassle and expense of large servers. I could probably store my entire 500 CD collection using a lossless codec on one or two BD discs, and to which I would have easy access. Now that would be a great option I am willing to explore. So while I don't see BD being a great medium for pre-record music becauses the capacity is overkill, I do see it as a cheap and simple way to store and access my music. Of course I will need a BD burner and the ability to copy my music without DRM issues. So with all that in mind - put me on board.

Now, having said that, does anyone here know if and how I can do this right now? If so, THIS may be what gets me into BD, not the outrageously overpriced BD movies.

If 5.1 lossless audio takes on average 2-4gb on BD release and most music is 2.0, then why is it necessessary to have 25GB reserved for it?

Couldn't you just do this with DVD-5? Oh thats right, they tried it and it failed.

Last I checked, CDs were lossless, weren't they?

If you really wanted to get crazy you could always just release the music in MP3 in 320kbits in 2.0 on a CD.

Just another Bluray is great spin article. Rah Rah Rah! Go Blu you can do it! Rah Rah Rah!

I wish they would just stop this non-sense spin agenda and just get the price in line where mainstream people will actually buy it.

I will say this though. For concerts, it is great, but even concerts still end up often being in just 2.0.

CDs are not "lossless", they are raw linear PCM at a mere 44.1kHz/16-bit, so, maybe you should check again. "Lossless" refers to a file that has been compressed in a manner in which no data has been lost. Referring to anything that is uncompressed as "lossless" is incorrect.

As far as most concerts being 2.0, I don't know where the heck you get that from. The vast majority of concert videos I own, particularly the Blu-rays, are in 5.1 and in a higher resolution than CDs.

I can pick up a 500GB Hard Drive for 80 bucks. That is what, 5-10x the capacity of 2x BluRay discs depending on which size discs you are using? Nevermind the obviously application of using the HD as an easy medium for my iPod or MP3 player.


Anyways I see this as being really niche. 99% of people probably dont care as evidenced by the explosion in low quality MP3s erroding the CD business.

CDs are not "lossless", they are raw linear PCM at a mere 44.1kHz/16-bit, so, maybe you should check again. "Lossless" refers to a file that has been compressed in a manner in which no data has been lost. Referring to anything that is uncompressed as "lossless" is incorrect.
We are splitting hairs for sure :). But he is right that CD is lossless. If we don't use that defenition, then we have to accept that no format is lossless. Because even a 7.1 "mix" is the result of taking many tracks and mixing them down to 7.1. So we have lost something there too :).

Again, I don't think the semantic differences here are important. Just to note that CD doesn't introduce any loss in transmission of 16-bit/44.1 stereo material.

Back to the original post, some content will surely be published in BD. We saw that in HD DVD although there, AACS was not mandatory. Given the low volume of such content, paying $5K for AACS license means the difference between making money and not.

The other "must" was mentioned before: there better be in the clear version of the same files for PC/portable music consumption. The folks we talked to about HD DVD music titles were very much in favor of this (they were smaller distributors).

Most of the interest btw was from Europe. In US, speciality disties will do some releases too but not the majors. Every executive I know that was pushing for DVD-A/SACD has been let go due to banking on those ideas, instead of the Internet. So anyone wanting to keep their jobs, is not going to go and suggest to do more in this area, other than what might naturally pop out.

Only people trying to muddy the waters and push some kind of an agenda call it splitting hairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless

It is incorrect to refer to PCM as lossless, period.

It was called the iPod.



I think you still have the iPod factor working against this, sadly.



That depends on where they got the ripped content from. I've ripped about 1/2 of my music collection and will likely start ripping my movie collection as well. Why can't I rip (to my own machines) content I've paid for and playback as I please anywhere in my home without carrying around the disc?

There is a dichotomy at work with the iPod/High-End Audio debate. People don't necessarily choose one or the other exclusively. Case and point: I have tens of thousands of songs on my iPod & many favorites on my iPhone. It took me months to rip all of my old CD's, and now I can enjoy pretty much my entire extensive music library on the go. However, when I am at home relaxing, I love pulling out my SACD copy of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or my DVD-A of The Beatles' LOVE. I love being immersed in the soundscapes that the artists and the 5.1 mixers & engineers create. The two sides of the digital music coin can co-exist. Music on Blu-ray for home, and on the iPod for the car, work, or jogging. Now I'd just like to see music on Blu-ray packaged with an Apple Lossless version of the album right on the disc so it can be dragged right into iTunes.

Now I'd just like to see music on Blu-ray packaged with an Apple Lossless version of the album right on the disc so it can be dragged right into iTunes.
Digital copy is something that is getting much more prevalent on Blu-ray movies. One of our writers (Chris Chiarella formerly of Home Theater Mag) did a pretty extensive survey and synopsis of what's out there now from various studios. Basically at this point, there are still several different approaches. First of all, what format to deliver? MPEG4? WMV? iTunes-compatible? Then, how to deliver it?

To date, I don't know of any digital copies that are included on the Blu-ray Disc itself, because BD-ROM drives on PCs are not that common. Most studios are delivering the digital copy on a separate disc (a DVD-ROM disc) with some kind of embedded application to transfer it over to your PC or Mac. Some are starting to deliver digital copies via a Web-based application which connects to a server and downloads a DRM-protected file based on a unique code in the actual Blu-ray packaging.

Delivering the digital copy in the packaging itself is preferable since it allows you to get it to your PC and portable player that much quicker, but there is the additional cost associated with including a separate physical disc.

The bottom line is that there are still kinks to be worked out with the digital copy system, but I'm encouraged to see that the studios are finally attempting to deal with the issue in a way that ultimately should benefit the consumer.

Anyone who's curious can read more in Chris' article: Digital Copy, Blu-ray, DVD and DRM: What's Up With That? (http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/digital-copy-dvd-drm-blu-ray-1603.shtml)

-CB

There is a dichotomy at work with the iPod/High-End Audio debate. People don't necessarily choose one or the other exclusively. Case and point: I have tens of thousands of songs on my iPod & many favorites on my iPhone. It took me months to rip all of my old CD's, and now I can enjoy pretty much my entire extensive music library on the go. However, when I am at home relaxing, I love pulling out my SACD copy of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or my DVD-A of The Beatles' LOVE. I love being immersed in the soundscapes that the artists and the 5.1 mixers & engineers create. The two sides of the digital music coin can co-exist. Music on Blu-ray for home, and on the iPod for the car, work, or jogging. Now I'd just like to see music on Blu-ray packaged with an Apple Lossless version of the album right on the disc so it can be dragged right into iTunes.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Although I find that I rarely use my iPod these days, I like having it for use in a car, or on a plane, etc. SACDs were always great because most of them (especially after the early single-layer Sony days) were hybrids that allowed one to rip the CD-layer. I always rip files losslessly, so they are identical to the CD.

If Blu-ray audio discs were to include lossless versions of the albums along with the high-resolution stereo and/or multichannel program, then we'd be getting somewhere. They could even possibly offer the lossless files as a download via BD-Live and bypass the necessity of actually placing it on the disc, taking advantage of the interactive capabilities of the format.

CDs are not "lossless", they are raw linear PCM at a mere 44.1kHz/16-bit, so, maybe you should check again. "Lossless" refers to a file that has been compressed in a manner in which no data has been lost. Referring to anything that is uncompressed as "lossless" is incorrect.

As far as most concerts being 2.0, I don't know where the heck you get that from. The vast majority of concert videos I own, particularly the Blu-rays, are in 5.1 and in a higher resolution than CDs.

My opinion: Concerts belong in 2.0, not 5.1. How many concerts do you (meant to all) where the sound is coming from all directions? It's always in front, and I've been to probably hundreds of concerts.

It was called the iPod.


SACD and DVD-A were non-issues well before the ipod.


I think its mostly a player issue. J6P doesn't want to pay $400 to get a slightly better sound when CD already sounds great to him. If they can implement this so that it will play on standard blu-ray players, they might have a chance.


I never bought into the high res stuff because I didn't want to pay for a player. When I got my Ps3, I bought a couple SACDs, simply because they cost about the same as the regular CDs, and have the multichannel mixes.

My opinion: Concerts belong in 2.0, not 5.1. How many concerts do you (meant to all) where the sound is coming from all directions? It's always in front, and I've been to probably hundreds of concerts.I don't know about you, but one of things I look for in concerts is the acoustics. Humans don't process just stereo, otherwise we would have been killed off when we couldn't determine what specific direction a warning was coming from.

I believe that CD is the last succesful spinning media.
The future is solid (state) and downloads.

Consequently, if BD becomes the dominant format, it will too be the last spinning media.

The writing is on the wall.

Here on AVS people pay far too much attention to magazine articles. A small label's declaration isn't likely to make any real impact unless major labels go onboard. Superior spec alone won't be enough for me; DVD-A (with 5.1 24/96) and SACD (5.0 or 5.1) are both good enough. If the artists I admire record in Blu-ray high resolution audio (continuing where DVD-A and SACD left off) then by all means. Expensive releases from small labels with relatively unknown artists and relatively obscure repertoire don't greatly excite me.


What makes Blu-ray different than, say DVD-Audio is that there's roughly 6X the storage capacity on a dual layer Blu-ray disc than there is on a dual layer DVD, so this leaves you a LOT of room for multi-channel music, in even higher bit word/higher sampling rates than were possible even with DVD-Audio...

High sampling rates, yes but both DVD-A and Blu-ray support the same bit depths up to 24-bit.

But you could fit an entire album at 24/192 5.1 or even 24/192 7.1 channels and still have plenty of room for music videos, even in high definition...

According to the Blu-ray Disc Format Whitepaper 2B (March 2005), the Blu-ray Disc spec allows only 6 channels of 24-bit 192 kHz (p.18, Fig. 3-4 - Specification of BD-ROM Audio Streams). So you are saying the spec has changed?

DVD-A can have up to 6 channels of 24/96 and BD 6 channels of 24/192 and 8 channels of 24/96 of uncompressed or 'losslessly' encoded PCM. So the differences aren't a quantum leap. I doubt if most people at home can hear any difference between 96kHz and 192kHz, and have kits that can resolve 24-bit fully.

I don't know about you, but one of things I look for in concerts is the acoustics. Humans don't process just stereo, otherwise we would have been killed off when we couldn't determine what specific direction a warning was coming from.

Exactly. Concerts are in 2.0? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Every concert I have ever been to in my life (and I've been to a lot) the sound may be discretely coming from the front, but the ambient imaging and acoustics of the performance space are coming from all around, not two points in front of me. :confused:

Exactly. Concerts are in 2.0? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Every concert I have ever been to in my life (and I've been to a lot) the sound may be discretely coming from the front, but the ambient imaging and acoustics of the performance space are coming from all around, not two points in front of me. :confused:

That has always been one of the major appeals of multichannel sound for me. Not instruments surrounding me (though that is sometimes fun), but being able to hear the hall ambience of a live performance.

CDs are not "lossless", they are raw linear PCM at a mere 44.1kHz/16-bit, so, maybe you should check again. "Lossless" refers to a file that has been compressed in a manner in which no data has been lost. Referring to anything that is uncompressed as "lossless" is incorrect.

As far as most concerts being 2.0, I don't know where the heck you get that from. The vast majority of concert videos I own, particularly the Blu-rays, are in 5.1 and in a higher resolution than CDs.

I believe you are in error there. CD are not compressed and hence are not lossless. They may not be the best sound recording, but are indeed lossless. This is opposed to MP3, AC3 and WMA which are lossy. Of course there are compression algorithms that are lossless such as TrueHD and DTS-MA. I understand the difference

Perhaps referring to "anything that is uncompressed as lossless is incorrect" is not what I was referring to. I was specifically talking about CDs, and as we all know... CDs do not use compression. I wasn't talking about all compression.

Following the way that you have twisted that definition, nothing is lossless.... not even our own ears. Even the molecules that the sound passes through after the first one are not lossless.

Perhaps you need to do a little reading before you directly quote wikipedia without giving a citation.

That has always been one of the major appeals of multichannel sound for me. Not instruments surrounding me (though that is sometimes fun), but being able to hear the hall ambience of a live performance.

Ummmm..... sound is generally produced via two sides of the stage... hence 2.0.

The sound ricochetting is usually drowned out by the level of the stage music.

Ummmm..... sound is generally produced via two sides of the stage... hence 2.0.

The sound ricochetting is usually drowned out by the level of the stage music.

Have you ever been to Albert Hall? or an Opera, or even a amateur piano recital? You visually see the stage however the music surrounds you. The good theaters are designed for non amplified audio fidelity.

also the 2.0 is from your ears. The sound is never 2.0 sound travels in all directions from the source, and reflects of hard surfaces.

Have you ever been to Albert Hall? or an Opera, or even a amateur piano recital? You visually see the stage however the music surrounds you. The good theaters are designed for non amplified audio fidelity.

also the 2.0 is from your ears. The sound is never 2.0 sound travels in all directions from the source, and reflects of hard surfaces.

The problem with multichannel is it's usually gimmicky and not a natural representation of the acoustical recording venue. It's true that with the right microphone placement it could be, but most of the multichannel I've heard sounded very artificial to me. I prefer well done stereo.

Here on AVS people pay far too much attention to magazine articles.
Yes, those people who want to enrich their knowledge by reading the opinions of experts in the field. My, how silly they (we) all are.

A small label's declaration isn't likely to make any real impact unless major labels go onboard. Superior spec alone won't be enough for me; DVD-A (with 5.1 24/96) and SACD (5.0 or 5.1) are both good enough.
Except that they're both dead. D-E-A-D. As opposed to Blu-ray Disc which has the potential to be more successful than either, and, by many accounts, already is more successful than either in terms of player penetration, brand awareness and speed of adoption.

I'm sure you're arguing point by point just to pick a fight - some people get off on that. You think that if you can find a typo or small factual error in a post that it invalidates the whole argument. And you're welcome to spend your time and energy however you like. I won't take it personally. But the overriding *point* here (that most of the people seem to grok even if you do not) is that now, with Blu-ray, as a successful format for video, and rising in popularity and distribution and public exposure, the record labels (large and small) have an opportunity to deliver music in much higher quality than CD for those who care about quality and want this.

No one here ever said that the reason Blu-ray Disc could be more successful than DVD-Audio for high-end music delivery is that it is higher quality (though it is marginally better, and offers so many additional features not possible with DVD-Audio and SACD). That seems to be a direction that you and only you are taking this. The reason we're optimistic is because Blu-ray is well on its way to being a real viable format - something that DVD-Audio and SACD never managed to accomplish - and seeing labels (even small ones) embracing it for music delivery, gives us hope that more may come on board.

As with SACD and DVD-Audio, labels can deliver a high quality 2-channel mix for those who want it, and a high resolution multi-channel mix for those who prefer surround. I'm not saying that the labels *will* come on board or that 5 years from now we'll have an extensive selection of high quality multi-channel music recordings available on Blu-ray. But I'm encouraged to think that it *could* happen. Guess I'm just a "glass half full" kinda guy.

High sampling rates, yes but both DVD-A and Blu-ray support the same bit depths up to 24-bit.
You're right. I misspoke.

According to the Blu-ray Disc Format Whitepaper 2B (March 2005), the Blu-ray Disc spec allows only 6 channels of 24-bit 192 kHz (p.18, Fig. 3-4 - Specification of BD-ROM Audio Streams). So you are saying the spec has changed?
Anal retentive much?

DVD-A can have up to 6 channels of 24/96 and BD 6 channels of 24/192 and 8 channels of 24/96 of uncompressed or 'losslessly' encoded PCM. So the differences aren't a quantum leap. I doubt if most people at home can hear any difference between 96kHz and 192kHz, and have kits that can resolve 24-bit fully.
Again, missing the point. No one here was suggesting that 24/192 is vastly superior to 24/96. The point is that Blu-ray for music has potential to be, for high quality music, what DVD-Audio and SACD failed to be:

viable.

Later,

-Chris

The problem with multichannel is it's usually gimmicky and not a natural representation of the acoustical recording venue. It's true that with the right microphone placement it could be, but most of the multichannel I've heard sounded very artificial to me. I prefer well done stereo.

Rent Legends of Jazz, Compare the PCM 2.0 with the 5.1 TrueHD, the only thing missing is the smoke and the booze. :D which you can easily provide.

IMO, if there is not a way to preset or program the players to play these discs like CDs/SACDs without video menus then I don't think the format has a chance gaining any significant market penetration.

If I can't just put in the discs and press play and enjoy like with CD and SACD, I probably won't even buy into the format, and there is no bigger fan of hi-rez audio than me. Sorry, but I refuse to screw around with video menus.

Rent Legends of Jazz, Compare the PCM 2.0 with the 5.1 TrueHD, the only thing missing is the smoke and the booze. :D which you can easily provide.

That disc has been on my list to buy, so I will definitely check it out. Thanks.

Yes, I just don't see this ever becoming more than a niche... at best.

If DVD-A failed.... and was based on a medium many times more popular than BD, then how is this supposed to take it to another level?

I don't think anyone here believes that the quality will not be better. There is always a higher level in quality. Like DVD-A, I don't eer see this becoming a sustainable product.

Techinically, wouldn't it be easier to just download the HD music and play it on an HD MP3 player device?

Ummmm..... sound is generally produced via two sides of the stage... hence 2.0.

The sound ricochetting is usually drowned out by the level of the stage music.Not true. You may not pay attention to it but the same performance in different halls will sound different and it is due, primarily, to the reflected hall sound.

The problem with multichannel is it's usually gimmicky and not a natural representation of the acoustical recording venue. It's true that with the right microphone placement it could be, but most of the multichannel I've heard sounded very artificial to me. I prefer well done stereo.Depends on what you listen to, of course. Most of the classical recordings (but not all) are recorded sensibly with reasonable frontal imaging and convincing ambiance from the surrounds.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I think its your loss.

Additionally this is a niche product, as those looking for Hidef audio programs are few and far between. Adding the video makes it kind of a crossover product.

If DVD-A failed.... and was based on a medium many times more popular than BD, then how is this supposed to take it to another level?Really? I would love to see the data, especially with comparable time windows from initial release.

I believe you are in error there. CD are not compressed and hence are not lossless. They may not be the best sound recording, but are indeed lossless.

I think you are missing a word or have an extra word there. The two sentences contradict each other. But I think you're saying that CDs are "lossless," right?
Following the way that you have twisted that definition, nothing is lossless.... not even our own ears. Even the molecules that the sound passes through after the first one are not lossless.

Perhaps you need to do a little reading before you directly quote wikipedia without giving a citation.
Gotta back up the Golden Boy on this one. Nothing twisted in his definition. "Lossless" generally involves a process of some kind, e.g., transmission or compression/decompression. a "before" and an "after." With CD, there is no "process" - the file is encoded at 16bit/44KHz and played back exactly the same way. So it can't really be described as "lossless." Uncompressed? Yes, certainly. But not lossless.

If you don't like wikipedia, then how about Merriam Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lossless)? ": done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission>."

Although you could say "being without loss" describes PCM because there is no additional loss introduced in the format itself. I'd argue that that's akin to saying an apple delivered in a paper bag is lossless as opposed to an apple delivered through a meat grinder (lossy). Is the paper bag lossless? No, it's just the carrier of the apple. Is the apple lossless? No, it's just an apple.

And in our context, "lossless" is typically only used to describe the compression/decompression process. If something is put through a process and the input is identical to the output, then it's lossless. If input is not equal to output, then it's lossy (even if that loss is inaudible to some or most people).

But I think this is just a question of semantics and doesn't really further the discussion one way or the other to argue over it. You're certainly welcome to your opinion.

-CB

That disc has been on my list to buy, so I will definitely check it out. Thanks.
Also check out "Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall" - a wonderful 24/96/5.1 Dolby TrueHD recording where you can really hear the hall itself. Almost as good as being there.

-CB

Yes, I just don't see this ever becoming more than a niche... at best.

If DVD-A failed.... and was based on a medium many times more popular than BD, then how is this supposed to take it to another level?

But it was NOT based on a medium many times more popular. You have to have a special DVD-Audio player to play the discs, which eliminates probably more than 99% of all DVD players. That and the format was horrible...annoying mandatory video menu use, no standardization, poor marketing...at total disaster, IMO. DVD-A is the epitome of how not to design a format as far as I'm concerned. A simple 96khz/24bit stereo "DVD-CD" could have easily been implemented and playable on every DVD player, but the industry didn't want it without copy protection and multichannel sound, so we never got it. A shame because I think it would gained far, far more market share.

I think Sony should come out with a simple "Blu-ray CD" or BD-CD format with just stereo and multichannel 192khz/24bit PCM that works like SACD (simple, no video menus - just great audio). Just having "CD" in the name of the product does the vast majority of any necessary promotion and advertising. Even the most uninformed consumers will instantly "get it" if they see CD in the name.

But it was NOT based on a medium many times more popular. You have to have a special DVD-Audio player to play the discs, which eliminates probably more than 99% of all DVD players. That and the format was horrible...annoying mandatory video menu use, no standardization, poor marketing...at total disaster, IMO. DVD-A is the epitome of how not to design a format as far as I'm concerned. A simple 96khz/24bit stereo "DVD-CD" could have easily been implemented and playable on every DVD player, but the industry didn't want it without copy protection and multichannel sound, so we never got it. A shame because I think it would gained far, far more market share.

I think Sony should come out with a simple "Blu-ray CD" or BD-CD format with just stereo and multichannel 192khz/24bit PCM that works like SACD (simple, no video menus - just great audio). Just having "CD" in the name of the product does the vast majority of any necessary promotion and advertising. Even the most uninformed consumers will instantly "get it" if they see CD in the name.

Piracy concerns will never allow it to happen unfortunately. :(

Piracy concerns will never allow it to happen unfortunately. :(

I have no problem with them copy-protecting it.

I have no problem with them copy-protecting it.

You unfortunately are in a very small minority with that opinion. Even on this forum a majority of members are vehemently opposed to any form of copy protection.

The audio only BD spec is the 3.0 spec ?, and lets hope it see's the light of day.

You unfortunately are in a very small minority with that opinion. Even on this forum a majority of members are vehemently opposed to any form of copy protection.

Well I have no problem with it all. If they wanted to there would be plenty of space to include a 44.1khz/16bit stereo track for anyone that might want to rip it for some other use.

Think how great such a format would be. It could all be done on single layer BD discs and be playable on all blu-ray players. Imagine the stickers that could be put on the packaging: "Plays just like a CD on all blu-ray players!" They could also include information about it in blu-ray literature and have preview type advertisements on movie discs informing everyone of its existance, how it works, the benefits, etc. It seems like a slam dunk to me. So much potential...so simple, so great.

The audio only BD spec is the 3.0 spec ?, and lets hope it see's the light of day.

I'm preying they do it right because this is really the last chance of there being any viable hi-rez audio format.

IMO, if there is not a way to preset or program the players to play these discs like CDs/SACDs without video menus then I don't think the format has a chance gaining any significant market penetration.

If I can't just put in the discs and press play and enjoy like with CD and SACD, I probably won't even buy into the format, and there is no bigger fan of hi-rez audio than me. Sorry, but I refuse to screw around with video menus.
Yep!

There is a dichotomy at work with the iPod/High-End Audio debate. People don't necessarily choose one or the other exclusively. Case and point: I have tens of thousands of songs on my iPod & many favorites on my iPhone. It took me months to rip all of my old CD's, and now I can enjoy pretty much my entire extensive music library on the go. However, when I am at home relaxing, I love pulling out my SACD copy of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or my DVD-A of The Beatles' LOVE. I love being immersed in the soundscapes that the artists and the 5.1 mixers & engineers create. The two sides of the digital music coin can co-exist. Music on Blu-ray for home, and on the iPod for the car, work, or jogging. Now I'd just like to see music on Blu-ray packaged with an Apple Lossless version of the album right on the disc so it can be dragged right into iTunes.

The problem here with 7.1/5.1 audio vs cheap mp3 audio is the convenience and portability factor. With audio, portability wins out --- with earphones, 7.1/5.1 is just not possible, and while all stereo music is clearly inferior to a true multi channel recording, when you're out of the home, it makes little difference.

However, I wonder if clubs playing 7.1 music might enjoy an advantage over a one using stereo one? Since people are moving about and not sitting still, the ability to be surrounded by the multi channel audio is diminished --- there's really just one small sweet spot where the music sounds optimally here.

This is why a movie in highdef still has a distinct advantage over the itune download. People don't jog or drive around (not the driver anyway) watching a movie, it's too dangerous, and movies are watched predominantly in the home under conditions favorable for highdef.

So we have no problem including copy protection?

I personally rip my CDs to my Creative Zen. I don't want to have to by an HD version that I can't rip as well as a CD version that I can.

So we have no problem including copy protection?

I personally rip my CDs to my Creative Zen. I don't want to have to by an HD version that I can't rip as well as a CD version that I can.

It looks like the BDs are moving towards the digital copy side where there is an inferior lowbitrate DVD quality copy that can be copied onto a PC.

They're not likely to willingly allow the highdef version to have copies.

Japan solved this problem with their new COPY-TEN flag, which allows a master copy to be copied to ten different devices with varying resolutions. Each 2nd gen is not copyable (not legally anyway), and the master copy has a counter attached to it. This should satisfy the fair use side argument, but it's not enough to satisfy the peer-to-peer crowd that wants to get everything for free.

It looks like the BDs are moving towards the digital copy side where there is an inferior lowbitrate DVD quality copy that can be copied onto a PC.

They're not likely to willingly allow the highdef version to have copies.

Japan solved this problem with their new COPY-TEN flag, which allows a master copy to be copied to ten different devices with varying resolutions. Each 2nd gen is not copyable (not legally anyway), and the master copy has a counter attached to it. This should satisfy the fair use side argument, but it's not enough to satisfy the peer-to-peer crowd that wants to get everything for free.

No I understand. I haven't done peer to peer since Napster shutdown all those years back. But I think about everyone was back then. I would be to scared that I would be the one that they catch and fine. I also don't think you get as much quality from that either. I personally use Rhapsody with an unlimited download prescription. 12.99 a month and I can download all I want to my Zen. It gives you 160kbit WMA which is about equivalent to 192-224 MP3 and is professionally encoded which counts for alot.

Although my 13 year old daughter uses it more than I do now... the service for her own mp3 player. I figured it would be better to let her do that then to find out she is peer to peer without my knowledge. I have watched alot of stories of parents getting busted for what their kids do.

The point that I was making is that given the choice, I personally would like the HD music as a download that I can load onto a device rather on a bluray that I can't port over.

.... I personally would like the HD music as a download that I can load onto a device rather on a bluray that I can't port over.

As in HD video the copyright holders will be opposed to non DRM'd HD audio, at best you might get a diluted HD lite version. That said, some copyright holders choose to allow you access to some lossless audio ie Trent Reznor - Nine Inch Nails "Slip" which you could download as apple lossless or FLAC, or high bitrate mp3, for free, but these examples are few and far between most of the corps that control the music biz would prefer a tighter control on access.

I believe you are in error there. CD are not compressed and hence are not lossless. They may not be the best sound recording, but are indeed lossless. This is opposed to MP3, AC3 and WMA which are lossy. Of course there are compression algorithms that are lossless such as TrueHD and DTS-MA. I understand the difference

Perhaps referring to "anything that is uncompressed as lossless is incorrect" is not what I was referring to. I was specifically talking about CDs, and as we all know... CDs do not use compression. I wasn't talking about all compression.

Following the way that you have twisted that definition, nothing is lossless.... not even our own ears. Even the molecules that the sound passes through after the first one are not lossless.

Perhaps you need to do a little reading before you directly quote wikipedia without giving a citation.

The wikipedia link was there as reference. Whatever the point is that you are trying to make, the term "lossless" specifically refers to lossless data compression algorithms, hence neither CDs nor our ears can be referred to as "lossless" in those terms. CDs, in terms of audio reproduction are uncompressed PCM, NOT lossless, there's no debate.

I think you are missing a word or have an extra word there. The two sentences contradict each other. But I think you're saying that CDs are "lossless," right?

Gotta back up the Golden Boy on this one. Nothing twisted in his definition. "Lossless" generally involves a process of some kind, e.g., transmission or compression/decompression. a "before" and an "after." With CD, there is no "process" - the file is encoded at 16bit/44KHz and played back exactly the same way. So it can't really be described as "lossless." Uncompressed? Yes, certainly. But not lossless.

If you don't like wikipedia, then how about Merriam Webster's definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lossless)? ": done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission>."

Although you could say "being without loss" describes PCM because there is no additional loss introduced in the format itself. I'd argue that that's akin to saying an apple delivered in a paper bag is lossless as opposed to an apple delivered through a meat grinder (lossy). Is the paper bag lossless? No, it's just the carrier of the apple. Is the apple lossless? No, it's just an apple.

And in our context, "lossless" is typically only used to describe the compression/decompression process. If something is put through a process and the input is identical to the output, then it's lossless. If input is not equal to output, then it's lossy (even if that loss is inaudible to some or most people).

But I think this is just a question of semantics and doesn't really further the discussion one way or the other to argue over it. You're certainly welcome to your opinion.

-CB
Exactly. Referring to a CD as lossless, would be akin to referring to a .doc file as lossless, and then referring to a .zip version of that file as lossless as well. Only the latter version is actually a losslessly compressed version, the .doc file is simply the raw data itself.

duplicate

Also check out "Dave Matthews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall" - a wonderful 24/96/5.1 Dolby TrueHD recording where you can really hear the hall itself. Almost as good as being there.

-CB

Rent Legends of Jazz, Compare the PCM 2.0 with the 5.1 TrueHD, the only thing missing is the smoke and the booze. :D which you can easily provide.

A couple of other titles you should check out are Chris Botti & Friends BD which has a wonderful 96/24 5.1 PCM mix and the new Rolling Stones Shine a Light BD, which comes with both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA 5.1 surround mixes. The Stones mix really sounds like you are there at the Beacon Theatre. Believe me, I know. I've seen quite a few shows in that venue myself, including Lou Reed, Cowboy Junkies, The Allman Brothers, and Lenny Kravitz.

The wikipedia link was there as reference. Whatever the point is that you are trying to make, the term "lossless" specifically refers to lossless data compression algorithms, hence neither CDs nor our ears can be referred to as "lossless" in those terms. CDs, in terms of audio reproduction are uncompressed PCM, NOT lossless, there's no debate.

You guys do realize that the Digital-To-Analog conversion that happens from live audio to PCM is a type of compression, right? Even with your argument, hes still technically "correct". I quote correct because whether or not theres a loss of audible data in that encoding stage is up to debate.

You guys do realize that the Digital-To-Analog conversion that happens from live audio to PCM is a type of compression, right? Even with your argument, hes still technically "correct". I quote correct because whether or not theres a loss of audible data in that encoding stage is up to debate.

Ugh, is all I have to say to that. :rolleyes:

You guys do realize that the Digital-To-Analog conversion that happens from live audio to PCM is a type of compression, right? Even with your argument, hes still technically "correct". I quote correct because whether or not theres a loss of audible data in that encoding stage is up to debate.

Ugh, is all I have to say to that. :rolleyes:

:D Bring Back Vinyl :D

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=116405&stc=1&d=1217527352

Snap, crackle, & pop. Plus hiss and rumble. No thanks! I take lossless super resolution downloads from Music Giants.

Snap, crackle, & pop. Plus hiss and rumble. No thanks! I take lossless super resolution downloads from Music Giants.

But.. But its TRUE LOSSLESS. :)

Just kidding. Isn't each progressive generation supposed to improve fidelity. This generations best appear to be PCM, DTS-HD MA, and TrueHD on Disc media, Probably will change in the future, i will enjoy that when its time comes, I will enjoy these now.

Snap, crackle, & pop. Plus hiss and rumble. No thanks! I take lossless super resolution downloads from Music Giants.

Wow, you need to take better care of your LPs!

Well with electronic air cleaners, never letting anyone but you handle the records, high end phono cartridges that track under a gram, high end tonearms, and high end turntables (liquid main bearing) -- yes you could almost get all the extraneous noise down. IIRC noise floor at -65 to -70 dB down was quite an achievement.

Contrast that to digital media at 24bit/96kHz resolution per channel with -90 dB down noise. And as others have said digital is the only way to get 5.1 or 7.1 multichannel. I appreciate the widening of the sweet spot with a center channel plus better capturing the recording's room ambiance with the surround channels.

I'd really like to see Blu ray audio gain some acceptance. Cd's can sound pretty good but not amazing, compared to a good vinyl they sound kind of flat and lifeless though. I really hate wearing my vinyls down unfortunately.

I'm hoping we can see some new life in digital distribution. I'm sure most people could care less but im willing to pay a bit extra.

I think this can work in a limited way.

1. Include digital version that can be ripped.

2. Include HD music videos

3. Audio in lossless 5.1.

4. Include lots of special bonus materials

5. Use BD live to let people buy concert tickets and other merchandise.

6. Include a Kareoke version of the most popular tunes

Other gimmicks to fill up the disk :)


Perfect!! 100% agree, those would be the best uses of a next generation Hi-rez audio disc.

You guys do realize that the Digital-To-Analog conversion that happens from live audio to PCM is a type of compression, right?


Wrong, it's not a type of compression it's a type of modulation.


Even with your argument, hes still technically "correct". I quote correct because whether or not theres a loss of audible data in that encoding stage is up to debate.

No it's not up to debate.

Wrong, it's not a type of compression it's a type of modulation.

I think the point he's making is a certain amount of information is always lost in any analog to digital conversion involving live audio.

No it's not up to debate.

Ultimately it's a subjective judgment. Debating it is pointless since not everyone's innate and learned hearing ability is anywhere near the same.

No need to isolate it as inherent to an "analog to digital" scenario.

Just "analog to analog" is enough to lose information, quite as easily, if not, more.

No need to isolate it as inherent to an "analog to digital" scenario.

Just "analog to analog" is enough to lose information, quite as easily, if not, more.

Yes, but the issue isn't comparing analog to analog vs. analog to digital and back to analog. Who wants to go back to analog to analog? Not me. The point is simply that any live sound event converted to digital involves a significant loss of information contained in the original sound. Whether or not that loss is audibly significant is ultimately a subjective judgment.

In the end, digitally downloaded audio will win out and people will have media servers ...no clunky discs.

They'll have clunky media servers instead.

The point is simply that any live sound event converted to digital involves a significant loss of information contained in the original sound.

Again, you seem to be picking and choosing where to place fault while completely disregarding others. The very link going from "live sound" going into an analog microphone involves a significant loss of information. One has to maintain perspective of the entire picture, rather than fixate on only one area that bugs you. Digital may not be infallible in every way imaginable, but then neither is analog. In fact it often ends up many orders of magnitude more fallible than digital, in real practice and by any quantifiable audio metric known to man (such that he can make a functional and determinant system to reproduce it, in the first place). All that is left that is not quantifiable or mathematically relevant is "voodoo wizardry" theories. That may sound glib, but that is essentially the level we are at, at that point.

It's easy to fixate on the notion that analog is the true reference because the actual event occurred in that domain. However, the fidelity of that event in time has long been lost by the time we hear it again through a recording of some sort in the analog domain. It's "another analog" at that point, that is only a faint facsimile of the original event, regardless of if it has been through a digital or analog intermediary medium. You may like or prefer one kind of rendition over another, but that's all it ever can be- a preference.

I think the point he's making is a certain amount of information is always lost in any analog to digital conversion involving live audio.



Ultimately it's a subjective judgment. Debating it is pointless since not everyone's innate and learned hearing ability is anywhere near the same.

No need to isolate it as inherent to an "analog to digital" scenario.

Just "analog to analog" is enough to lose information, quite as easily, if not, more.

Yes, but the issue isn't comparing analog to analog vs. analog to digital and back to analog. Who wants to go back to analog to analog? Not me. The point is simply that any live sound event converted to digital involves a significant loss of information contained in the original sound. Whether or not that loss is audibly significant is ultimately a subjective judgment.

Again, you seem to be picking and choosing where to place fault while completely disregarding others. The very link going from "live sound" going into an analog microphone involves a significant loss of information. One has to maintain perspective of the entire picture, rather than fixate on only one area that bugs you. Digital may not be infallible in every way imaginable, but then neither is analog. In fact it often ends up many orders of magnitude more fallible than digital, in real practice and by any quantifiable audio metric known to man (such that he can make a functional and determinant system to reproduce it, in the first place). All that is left that is not quantifiable or mathematically relevant is "voodoo wizardry" theories. That may sound glib, but that is essentially the level we are at, at that point.

It's easy to fixate on the notion that analog is the true reference because the actual event occurred in that domain. However, the fidelity of that event in time has long been lost by the time we hear it again through a recording of some sort in the analog domain. It's "another analog" at that point, that is only a faint facsimile of the original event, regardless of if it has been through a digital or analog intermediary medium. You may like or prefer one kind of rendition over another, but that's all it ever can be- a preference.


Mr. Hanky makes probably the best argument here, but the point that everyone here seems to have missed is that whether or not you actually lose information converting from analogue -> digital, digital ->analogue, or whatever, it is just INCORRECT to refer to CDs as "lossless", because the term itself is used to apply to algorithms that compress data with no loss of information. It's like I said previously, you would not refer to a .doc file as "lossless", but you would refer to a .zip file of that same .doc file as a lossless file -- it's really a much more simple concept than you all seem to be making it.

Mr. Hanky makes probably the best argument here, but the point that everyone here seems to have missed is that whether or not you actually lose information converting from analogue -> digital, digital ->analogue
While people often talk about digital conversion in those terms, the system can be measured easily in another way which is the same as analog domain. Namely, two things can happen as it goes into the chain above:

1. Addition of noise.

2. Addition of harmonic distortion.

If the signal is not dithered, then you wind up with harmonic distortion. A signal winds up with shadows of itself at multiples of its frequency. Even jitter, or timing error, manifests itself this way at the end. Look at the spec for any amplifier and what do you find? THD figures or Total Harmonic Distortion (plus noise).

There is some magic in digital which doesn't exist in analog though. By application of noise prior to conversion, we can convert harmonic distortion into noise. Fortunate for us, we have tremendous dynamic range in digital domain so addition of noise to the signal doesn't mean you start to hear something like tape hiss.

Now having said this, not all harmonic distortion sounds the same. And lack of dither or profile of dither used could have audible impact which is not analog like. This is perhaps the source of much argument about fidelity of digital systems.


, or whatever, it is just INCORRECT to refer to CDs as "lossless", because the term itself is used to apply to algorithms that compress data with no loss of information. It's like I said previously, you would not refer to a .doc file as "lossless", but you would refer to a .zip file of that same .doc file as a lossless file -- it's really a much more simple concept than you all seem to be making it.
I don't know that it is all that important to use this term this way or the other. The process of making a CD is not all the different than the process of a lossless compression. Many steps are involved which at the end, are designed to deliver the bits as was supplied to it. So I don't personally don't mind someone calling the transport "lossless."

While people often talk about digital conversion in those terms, the system can be measured easily in another way which is the same as analog domain. Namely, two things can happen as it goes into the chain above:

1. Addition of noise.

2. Addition of harmonic distortion.

If the signal is not dithered, then you wind up with harmonic distortion. A signal winds up with shadows of itself at multiples of its frequency. Even jitter, or timing error, manifests itself this way at the end. Look at the spec for any amplifier and what do you find? THD figures or Total Harmonic Distortion (plus noise).

There is some magic in digital which doesn't exist in analog though. By application of noise prior to conversion, we can convert harmonic distortion into noise. Fortunate for us, we have tremendous dynamic range in digital domain so addition of noise to the signal doesn't mean you start to hear something like tape hiss.

Now having said this, not all harmonic distortion sounds the same. And lack of dither or profile of dither used could have audible impact which is not analog like. This is perhaps the source of much argument about fidelity of digital systems.



I don't know that it is all that important to use this term this way or the other. The process of making a CD is not all the different than the process of a lossless compression. Many steps are involved which at the end, are designed to deliver the bits as was supplied to it. So I don't personally don't mind someone calling the transport "lossless."

First of all, please stop splitting up my posts and making it seem like I'm saying something I didn't say, second, whether YOU mind it or not, is not the argument. It is WRONG to call a CD "lossless", there's no debate. Look up the definition of the term anywhere you wish, and CDs don't fit.

First of all, please stop splitting up my posts and making it seem like I'm saying something I didn't say,
I am sorry if it came across as if I was correcting you. I was not attempting to do so in the first section of my post. I simply used your post to continue the discussion as you did with others. I think that is how the forum works :).
second, whether YOU mind it or not, is not the argument. It is WRONG to call a CD "lossless", there's no debate. Look up the definition of the term anywhere you wish, and CDs don't fit.
Where would I find such a definition? Using http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lossless I get:

"characterized by or causing no dissipation of energy"
So that is not making your point.

Wikipedia has no definition for "lossless." It has a definition for "Lossless data compression." It has no definition for the term lossless by itself.

Microsoft Word has no references to the word at all. OK, no bad jokes about my former employer :). But it does show that the word has no precise and well understood definition or there would be something here.

Webster referenced earlier in this thread says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lossless

"done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission> "

They seem to shed some light on the confusion. If the term lossless data compression is used, then it means what you say. But the term "lossless" when used by itself, cannot be attached to act of compression by default. It is too generic in that manner and can be applied easily to the modulation and manufacturing steps used to create and playback a CD. In this case, the CD is a “lossless transport” as opposed to lossless data compression which I understand to be your definition. It is the difference between generic use of the word and specific.

Indeed, if we had a transport which provided 99% of the bits and lost 1%, we would need a way to differentiate it from the CD. I would call this new transport “lossy” and the CD “lossless.” How else would one explain the difference between them?

Net, net, without authoritative and commonly used definition in the industry, the term is subject to interpretation and usage. This is why I said it is fine to let people use it in the manner they see fit. I appreciate that you feel one way, and others feel differently. That’s all.

While people often talk about digital conversion in those terms, the system can be measured easily in another way which is the same as analog domain. Namely, two things can happen as it goes into the chain above:

1. Addition of noise.

2. Addition of harmonic distortion.

If the signal is not dithered, then you wind up with harmonic distortion. A signal winds up with shadows of itself at multiples of its frequency. Even jitter, or timing error, manifests itself this way at the end. Look at the spec for any amplifier and what do you find? THD figures or Total Harmonic Distortion (plus noise).

There is some magic in digital which doesn't exist in analog though. By application of noise prior to conversion, we can convert harmonic distortion into noise. Fortunate for us, we have tremendous dynamic range in digital domain so addition of noise to the signal doesn't mean you start to hear something like tape hiss.

Now having said this, not all harmonic distortion sounds the same. And lack of dither or profile of dither used could have audible impact which is not analog like. This is perhaps the source of much argument about fidelity of digital systems.

...

There are two distinct uses for dither.

One is during analog to digital conversion to linearize the converter.
This was very important to do it right when ad conversion was still 16 bit in the early days.

With 24 bit converters (19..20 bit effective) dither is not required.
Thermal noise from previous analog input stage(s) is sufficient to hide the qunatization noise deep in the noise floor.


The other is after processing digital signals to mask effects of rounding errors.
Now that most digital processing is using 32bit fp or better the only process now that benefits from dither is the down conversion to 24 bits or lower integer pcm to deliver fhe final output.

I am sorry if it came across as if I was correcting you. I was not attempting to do so in the first section of my post. I simply used your post to continue the discussion as you did with others. I think that is how the forum works :).

Where would I find such a definition? Using http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lossless I get:

"characterized by or causing no dissipation of energy"
So that is not making your point.

Wikipedia has no definition for "lossless." It has a definition for "Lossless data compression." It has no definition for the term lossless by itself.

Microsoft Word has no references to the word at all. OK, no bad jokes about my former employer :). But it does show that the word has no precise and well understood definition or there would be something here.

Webster referenced earlier in this thread says: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lossless

"done or being without loss (as of power or data) <lossless data compression> <lossless power transmission> "

They seem to shed some light on the confusion. If the term lossless data compression is used, then it means what you say. But the term "lossless" when used by itself, cannot be attached to act of compression by default. It is too generic in that manner and can be applied easily to the modulation and manufacturing steps used to create and playback a CD. In this case, the CD is a “lossless transport” as opposed to lossless data compression which I understand to be your definition. It is the difference between generic use of the word and specific.

Indeed, if we had a transport which provided 99% of the bits and lost 1%, we would need a way to differentiate it from the CD. I would call this new transport “lossy” and the CD “lossless.” How else would one explain the difference between them?

Net, net, without authoritative and commonly used definition in the industry, the term is subject to interpretation and usage. This is why I said it is fine to let people use it in the manner they see fit. I appreciate that you feel one way, and others feel differently. That’s all.

No professional in the audio industry would call the term "lossless" generic. We are speaking about audio and everybody knows that when you say "lossless" it means losslessly compressed, which a CD is not. Your argument is ridiculous.

No professional in the audio industry would call the term "lossless" generic. We are speaking about audio and everybody knows that when you say "lossless" it means losslessly compressed, which a CD is not. Your argument is ridiculous.
Are you saying that if I said "CD is a lossless transport" that someone in the audio industry would come out and say that is incorrect?

Yes, but the issue isn't comparing analog to analog vs. analog to digital and back to analog. Who wants to go back to analog to analog? Not me. The point is simply that any live sound event converted to digital involves a significant loss of information contained in the original sound. Whether or not that loss is audibly significant is ultimately a subjective judgment.

No, there is plenty of research on this that destroys every argument the typical audiophile comes up with.

Yes there is a sigificant loss of information. Using 24 bit 96kHz sampling frequencies above 40kHz are lost.
Proven beyond a shred of doubt is that this has no audible impact at all.
This goes down to 20kHz audio bandwidth to cover 99.999999 % of the human population. (You can't learn to hear 20Khz signals 30dB below the average sound pressure level anyway.)

Analog is having a bandwidth limitation too, making the argument moot that loss of signal is the culprit.

Beyond a certain threshold there is no ground anymore for subjective judgment. This day and age digital is well beyond that threshold.

Another misconception in audiophile circles is that information between the samples is lost. The argument is always 'some sort of compression' or chopped up in pieces throwing away information. (Notice how compression is cunningly used to create a negative association)
The sad thruth is that these individuals do not grasp the basic principles of sampling theorem and how digital is the practical implementation of the science.

Well said! ;)

Again, you seem to be picking and choosing where to place fault while completely disregarding others. The very link going from "live sound" going into an analog microphone involves a significant loss of information.

I'm well aware of this. It was not at all what I was trying to say or imply.

It's easy to fixate on the notion that analog is the true reference because the actual event occurred in that domain. However, the fidelity of that event in time has long been lost by the time we hear it again through a recording of some sort in the analog domain. It's "another analog" at that point, that is only a faint facsimile of the original event, regardless of if it has been through a digital or analog intermediary medium. You may like or prefer one kind of rendition over another, but that's all it ever can be- a preference.

Yes, but only if the digital recording system has the appropriate specifications to capture all of the information contained in the original live analog mic feed. The point is simply that the digital system used often does not - it just captures what supposedly the limit is on what anyone can hear. In other words, it is an approximation or only part of the original signal...not enough data is captured to be able to completely recreate it.

No, there is plenty of research on this that destroys every argument the typical audiophile comes up with.

Yes there is a sigificant loss of information. Using 24 bit 96kHz sampling frequencies above 40kHz are lost.
Proven beyond a shred of doubt is that this has no audible impact at all.
This goes down to 20kHz audio bandwidth to cover 99.999999 % of the human population. (You can't learn to hear 20Khz signals 30dB below the average sound pressure level anyway.)

Analog is having a bandwidth limitation too, making the argument moot that loss of signal is the culprit.

Beyond a certain threshold there is no ground anymore for subjective judgment. This day and age digital is well beyond that threshold.

:rolleyes:Very slick. Sorry, it has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that frequencies above 40khz have absolutely zero impact on how some people may hear sounds. I happen to believe that they probably don't have an impact much above 24khz, but that's just me.

Another misconception in audiophile circles is that information between the samples is lost. The argument is always 'some sort of compression' or chopped up in pieces throwing away information. (Notice how compression is cunningly used to create a negative association)
The sad thruth is that these individuals do not grasp the basic principles of sampling theorem and how digital is the practical implementation of the science.

This discussion has nothing to do with erroneous ideas about sampling theory or ridiculous audiophile superstition...of which I believe none of. Nice try though to try an pin it as such.

Hypothetically, yes, but then also yes for any other recording system man has ever devised since the dawn of time. There's nothing unique about digital, in this respect. Like any recording system that came before it, there is a design bandwidth, dynamic range, and noise floor. There has never been a recording system that actually achieved infinite bandwidth/dynamic range/zero noise/errorless/distortionless.

Not even the mic is able to truly capture all encompassing information that existed at the time of the sound event. So the point remains, there is nothing distinctly "lossy" about digital, per se. "Analog to analog" is quite enough to "lose considerable information", for whatever you may consider to be "considerable".

You may imply that the sound was flawless up until the point it was converted into a digital domain, but I would contend that the sound became "flawed" the very point it hit the diaphragm of finite physical dimension of a recording mic (as opposed to an electromechanically perfect, infinitesimal point source).

Hypothetically, yes, but then also yes for any other recording system man has ever devised since the dawn of time. There's nothing unique about digital, in this respect. Like any recording system that came before it, there is a design bandwidth, dynamic range, and noise floor. There has never been a recording system that actually achieved infinite bandwidth/dynamic range/zero noise/errorless/distortionless.

Not even the mic is able to truly capture all encompassing information that existed at the time of the sound event. So the point remains, there is nothing distinctly "lossy" about digital, per se. "Analog to analog" is quite enough to "lose considerable information", for whatever you may consider to be "considerable".

All of this is true of course, but the the recording system often used is only a small fraction of what such a system could be easily designed to do. In other words, the technology exists for much higher fidelity (mainly higher bandwidth). At some point it would exceed the capabilities of playback equipment (speakers, electronics, etc.). Anything above that point would no longer be a subjective judgment since it cannot be reproduced when played back. Anything below that point is ultimately subjective since those elements penetrate our ears and bodies in any real live sound event. That was/is the simple point I was trying to make.

You may imply that the sound was flawless up until the point it was converted into a digital domain, but I would contend that the sound became "flawed" the very point it hit the diaphragm of finite physical dimension of a recording mic (as opposed to an electromechanically perfect, infinitesimal point source).

I don't disagree.

Exactly- we are into the realm of "exotic/eclectic audiophile theories", at this point. No sense in singling "digital" out as the only "remaining" offender.

Exactly- we are into the realm of "exotic/eclectic audiophile theories", at this point. No sense in singling "digital" out as the only "remaining" offender.

No we are not. The realm of "exotic/eclectic audiophile theories" involves things like power cables and disk cleaning solutions that "open up the sound." There is clear difference between what I am saying and these things: That is these things can be shown to not have any measurable existence. You can use a magical cleaning solution on your discs, but if you put them into a computer post and prior to treatment, the data read out will be exactly the same each time. It is a mathematical certainty that they cannot sound any different or better. Higher frequencies exist, can be captured, measured and reproduced. They also exist in every real life sound we hear in the world. See the difference?

...and then played back through a perfect replica of the human auditory system (in its full acoustical-mechanical-chemical nerve glory), the data read out will be exactly the same each time. See the relevance? (of course not, hence rhetorical)

The "infinite bandwidth" case absolutely does fall into the "exotic/eclectic audiophile theories" bin. You may not agree, but that won't change anything.

For the record, all of that stuff is complete nonsense to me. I've never heard the slightest difference between power cables, speaker cables and audio interconnects, and I've experimented with all of them a little. I couldn't hear squat...everything sounded exactly the same as far as I could tell. I wanted to hear a difference, but it wasn't there (or if it was, I couldn't detect it).

...and then played back through a perfect replica of the human auditory system, the data read out will be exactly the same each time. See the relevance? (of course not, hence rhetorical)

I see what you are trying to say, yes.

The "infinite bandwidth" case absolutely does fall into the "exotic/eclectic audiophile theories" bin. You may not agree, but that won't change anything.

Where have I ever suggested the notion of "infinite bandwidth?"

After you get beyond a certain point, it might as well be "infinite bandwidth", cuz it's not like you (as a human) will be able to discern one from the other. You may decide that point is at x, but then somebody else will challenge that the point is actually 2x, and then somebody else will suggest 10x from that 2x will be even better. Might as well just call it what it is, and that is the distinct audiophile obsession with "infinite bandwidth". The magic point will always shift to exactly 2.138x whatever the prevailing standard is at that time.

After you get beyond a certain point, it might as well be "infinite bandwidth", cuz it's not like you (as a human) will be able to discern one from the other. You may decide that point is at x, but then somebody else will challenge that the point is actually 2x, and then somebody else will suggest 10x from that 2x will be even better. Might as well just call it what it is, and that is the distinct audiophile obsession with "infinite bandwidth". The magic point will always shift to exactly 2.138x whatever the prevailing standard is at that time.

I see what you're saying. For me, I would want the bandwidth to be at least double the maximum pure frequency any human has ever measurably detected. I've heard there are people who can hear up to 24khz, so I'd want a bandwidth of at least 48khz. Maybe only 24.1Khz is enough, but just to be certain I would want double.

Is that unreasonable?

I would also be curios to hear a bandwidth so high that no filtering would be necessary (200khz and above) just to see if there are any audibly present effects from filtering alone.

You can want whatever you want [in response to if your criteria is unreasonable or not]. The mathematical and physical reality of the matter will continue to remain what it is, nonetheless.

If you believe this way of thinking is on the same level as magical disk cleaning solutions and other audiophile "exotic/eclectic theories" then so be it. I respectfully disagree.

You can want whatever you want [in response to if your criteria is unreasonable or not]. The mathematical and physical reality of the matter will continue to remain what it is, nonetheless.

The mathematical and physical reality is that higher frequencies can be captured and reproduced.;)

If you believe this way of thinking is on the same level as magical disk cleaning solutions and other audiophile "exotic/eclectic theories" then so be it. I respectfully disagree.
What if I said that interconnects and power conditioning work better than having high frequency response? Who should the industry follow and why?

What if I said that interconnects and power conditioning work better than having high frequency response?

I don't get the analogy. The purpose of the interconnect is transport data without loss or degradation from one electronic component to another. Ideally its purpose is to not add or subtract anything from the signal. The purpose of the power conditioner is provide a consistent flow of power to electronic components and prevent surges and spikes from damaging them.

Who should the industry follow and why?

The industry has little or no interest in high fidelity sound, so speculating on who they might "follow" is moot. My guess is they wouldn't follow either.

I don't get the analogy. The purpose of the interconnect is transport data without loss or degradation from one electronic component to another. Ideally its purpose is to not add or subtract anything from the signal. The purpose of the power conditioner is provide a consistent flow of power to electronic components and prevent surges and spikes from damaging them.
The analogy is that there are just as many people who believe in the improvements these technologies provide as there are advocates of higher bandwidth. Indeed, many times they are the same people!

Going further and using your reasoning, it can be shown that such things do measure differently. For example, feed RF to your audio interconnect and it is bound to look different at the other end on your scope than low frequency signal. And if someone says why you would care how the audio interconnect transmits high frequency content, the same can be said about why have response above 20 Khz! Maybe there is something about a cable that does that make it sound better.

The industry has little or no interest in high fidelity sound, so speculating on who they might "follow" is moot. My guess is they wouldn't follow either.
Exactly. The industry provided higher spec audio and nobody came. So there is no sense in trying to prove we are missing something. It doesn't matter.

The industry is also marketing higher-end cables and here, there appears to be a market. So those folks win :D.

Exactly. The industry provided higher spec audio and nobody came. So there is no sense in trying to prove we are missing something. It doesn't matter.

Since Blu-ray audio is the last real chance of a viable, well designed mass market capable hi-rez audio format, it is very important to me. I'm under no illusions though - the best I'm hoping for is that it becomes a large enough niche market to sustain a regular, though likely still small, release schedule. We'll see. I'm not very optimistic.

The industry is also marketing higher-end cables and here, there appears to be a market. So those folks win :D.

Do you mean overpriced or just high-end? I consider my cables high-end, but I don't pay much for them.

The other thing is I'd like to conduct some blind tests on myself, but I know of no reliable or scientifically valid way to do it. Even further, there are many who believe A/B testing in general, even when done properly, is still flawed for a whole host of reasons. I'm simply left to trust my ears, instincts and general experiences. What else is one supposed to do?

The analogy is that there are just as many people who believe in the improvements these technologies provide as there are advocates of higher bandwidth. Indeed, many times they are the same people!

True, but that in and of itself doesn't really disqualify higher bandwidth.

Going further and using your reasoning, it can be shown that such things do measure differently. For example, feed RF to your audio interconnect and it is bound to look different at the other end on your scope than low frequency signal. And if someone says why you would care how the audio interconnect transmits high frequency content, the same can be said about why have response above 20 Khz! Maybe there is something about a cable that does that make it sound better.

A distinction has to be made between just sounding different and actually being more accurate. One cable may sound better than another to someone, but it doesn't mean it's more accurate or truer to the original signal it was initially fed when it comes out the other end. Higher bandwidth provides greater accuracy or simply less error from the original analog source than a lower bandwidth does. It's not just that it's different - it's more accurate to the source, and less degradation from the original is present.