Audio standard for today and tomorrow

[Antonywatts]

We have seen the passing of vinyl, tape cassettes, etc. We are now at the end of the first digital era, the CD. Music distribution has moved to the inferior quality of MP4 (iTunes) or MP3 (the others).

 

Internetdownload speeds have rapidly increased from 64kbps dial-up to today's 3-20mbps broadband, some even higher.

 

So we ready for the next generation of music distribution, 24/96. But it is not happening. There are classical music site selling overpriced tracks, and Apple is asking studios to give them 24/96 inputs to be mastered to MP4. But the mainstream seems stuck, or has simply gone backwards to music streamin (Spotify and the like).

 

So when and how can we make the next big leap forward and get 24/96 as the main stream music distribution standard?

[esldude]

Create a market and it will get filled. The market simply isn't there.

 

In the analog days, at times cassette sold well, and LP. I would venture well done 192 kbps or 240 kbps MP3 is for all practical purposes as good as or better than those mediums.

 

Another thought, suppose we employ more advanced compression algorithms similar to MP3 or Ogg Vorbiss at bit rates similar to CD's total bit rate of 1.411 mbps? Could we move the audible equivalent of 24/96? Then again, I am not so sure 320 kbps doesn't get us nearly there. Compressed music with the output at 48 khz/24 bit would probably do it for nearly everything.

 

Still, in the end, sound quality below CD fidelity is what has found a market. I believe anything more will remain a niche market for quite some time. One might look at cameras though. Camera makers have successfully marketed higher megapixels when we have reached a point that more doesn't matter for the most part. What did they do differently than hi-rez music? I guess for one thing they didn't have record companies afraid to allow downloads of hirez for copyright reason.

 

Well just some random thoughts that occurred to me.

[Musicophile]

Sorry to say this: my prediction is never, or at least not that soon.

 

High quality audio files are a niche market, and I don't think it will become mainstream that soon. Most people are perfectly happy with 256 AAC files, and given what equipment most people use and what most of the listen to, I don't think that even if Apple launched 24/96 in the ITunes store, demand would be that big.

 

Let's face it: HD movies will be a success, because large TVs are a commodity and even my mum can tell the difference between an SD and HD movie in a blink.

 

Good Hifi equipment will not be commoditized that soon (probably never) and on your average iPod/docking station combo (that even most of my rather well-off friends use for music) I would be hard pressed to tell a clear difference between AAC and redbook or hires.

[sandyk]

Dennis

Have you been talking to Julf ? (grin) You certainly haven't been talking to Teresa (chuckle) , Barry Diament or Cookie Marenco !

IF you really believe that, why on earth do you have ESL speakers?

Perhaps your ears need syringing ? (heh!heh!)

Regards

Alex

 

How to Unclog a Clogged Ear: 7 steps (with pictures) - wikiHow

[esldude]

Now Alex,

 

believe it or not, I do have ear wax build up regularly. I just happened to have done the procedure you link to last night. So I should be good to go for a month at least. Using the vinegar is important too.

 

Ever stop to think maybe having the ESL speakers is why I believe what I do?

 

Dennis

[sandyk]

Ever stop to think maybe having the ESL speakers is why I believe what I do?

 

Hi Dennis

If you aren't a smoker, and the ESLs are in good condition, then that suggests something else is seriously letting down the listening chain. Perhaps you should be more specific in your signature ?

Kind Regards

Alex

[esldude]

Maybe my signature should read:

 

Pre-amp>amp>speakers>air>ears>brain

 

I suspect the ears/brain are most limiting, with speakers next, followed by air.

[chg]

I suspect the ears/brain are most limiting...

 

No doubt about that! Fortunately, Alex' and my ears/brain are in much better shape.

 

Sorry. I'm not trying to start an argument with you on this thread, but you've got to admit, you left the door wide open there, and I couldn't resist.

[bluesman]

Most people are perfectly happy with 256 AAC files, and given what equipment most people use and what most of the listen to, I don't think that even if Apple launched 24/96 in the ITunes store, demand would be that big.

 

Now that everyone can carry or access a library of pretty good quality music with a matchbook-sized device, the only advantage to advanced formats is an improvement in sound quality that's not heard by most, not worth the added cost to many, and only usable without buying new stuff by a few. There's no functional advantage to go with better sound.

 

The camera analogy's important here. Sony's up to 25 MP in several models, Nikon's up to 36.3, Leica to 38 and Pentax to 40. These create files so big that massive external storage is the only practical way to save them - most of us would have to upgrade our systems just to use them. There are already bulging HDs all across the land.

 

I'm streaming FLACs from my server to my work PCs and phone via Audiogalaxy, and I listen at home with Foobar. I'm thrilled with my music. But I'd ripped a lot of my CDs to mp3 before I went fully digital, and they're fine. I've not even been motivated to re-rip them to FLAC.

[jackfish]

How about better engineered, mixed and mastered 16-bit/44.1kHz music? All the 24-bit/96kHz or even 32-bit/384kHz music in the world is going to still sound like crap if it isn't taken care of earlier in the chain.

[wgb113]

I'm going to be the optimist and say it's on it's way! The majority of the mass market gets their music via download and plays it on portable devices. Premium priced headphones are all the rage. Headphone amps and DACs are selling better than ever. People are seeking out ways to make their downloads sound better. They're going to hit a wall. If the labels can get on board with another chance at "re-selling" those catalogs one more time this could be it.

 

Bill

[esldude]

No doubt about that! Fortunately, Alex' and my ears/brain are in much better shape.

 

Sorry. I'm not trying to start an argument with you on this thread, but you've got to admit, you left the door wide open there, and I couldn't resist.

 

And you gobbled up the bait like I knew you would.

 

I don't know your age or background of hearing health. I am old enough to hear less well than before, so yes some ear/brain combos are better than mine. Alex is older than I am, but probably has pretty good hearing. So, in your case, do you think some other part of the reproduction chain is more limiting than your ears/brain? If so how does it manifest itself?

[sandyk]

Alex is older than I am, but probably has pretty good hearing. So, in your case, do you think some other part of the reproduction chain is more limiting than your ears/brain? If so how does it manifest itself?

 

Hi Dennis

I can't speak for chg, but in my case ,due to 44 years with Telstra and resulting hearing damage, I have had to use many years of experience, including in the early days, monitoring of high quality equalised mono feeds from the national broadcaster that passed through the Telephone Exchange where I was based at the time. These days my brain has to do a lot more hard work to compensate for this damage , but what helps me most is further refinement of my listening equipment to the n'th degree .

I am probably fortunate in that I refused to accept the usual E.E type statements that all amplifiers that meet certain minimum specifications must sound the same. I feel that there are definite shortcomings in current modelling of human hearing, as I have found that the greater the bandwidth, the better it sounds.In other words, the rise time of the waveform is important, and perhaps is one of the main reasons why higher resolution formats sound markedly better to many people. Unfortunately, with age though, the audible dynamic range suffers.Incidentally, I soon hope to be trying a couple of ribbon tweeters mounted on top of my DCM QED 1A's with a 19kHZ 12dB network According to current thinking, there is no way I should be able to detect their presence, however I easily heard the contribution of some Plasma tweeters at a friend's place a few years ago.Another person my age also recently tried a pair of tweeters with extension to >40 kHZ . He has tried with and without them, but keeps going back to them in use.

Kind Regards

Alex

[chg]

And you gobbled up the bait like I knew you would.

 

I don't know your age or background of hearing health. I am old enough to hear less well than before, so yes some ear/brain combos are better than mine. Alex is older than I am, but probably has pretty good hearing. So, in your case, do you think some other part of the reproduction chain is more limiting than your ears/brain? If so how does it manifest itself?

 

That was not bait! That's funny.

 

I'd say you just slipped up there.

 

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback. So, no, I can't name any specific area for improvement in this regard. Improvements I would like to see, would be in recording quality.

[esldude]

That was not bait! That's funny.

 

I'd say you just slipped up there.

 

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback. So, no, I can't name any specific area for improvement in this regard. Improvements I would like to see, would be in recording quality.

 

Good bait never looks like bait to someone taking it. And it is working so well.

 

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback.

This makes me think you qualify for the tautology club.

 

xkcd: Honor Societies

[chg]

Good bait never looks like bait to someone taking it. And it is working so well.

 

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback.

This makes me think you qualify for the tautology club.

 

xkcd: Honor Societies

 

Well, at least you're making me laugh.

 

The tautology club doesn't really seem to apply too well to my comment, but O.K.

[esldude]

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback.

 

If you discern differences they are by definition audible. Or if they are audible they are by definition discernible. You never claimed you were unable to discern differences that were discernible. Seems pretty tautological to me.

[chg]

I never claimed that I was unable to discern various audible differences in audio playback.

 

If you discern differences they are by definition audible. Or if they are audible they are by definition discernible. You never claimed you were unable to discern differences that were discernible. Seems pretty tautological to me.

 

You're torturing a guy who is running on only a few hours sleep in the last few days.

 

How's this:

I never claimed an inability to hear the differences that exists during audio playback through my system with my super ears/brain.

[esldude]

chg,

 

Get some sleep. These forums aren't that important. Take care of yourself, and come back when refreshed.

 

Sorry, if I was taking advantage of your sleep deprivation.

[chg]

Thanks esl.

 

I can't yet. I'm working at the computer and just slip in to CA every now then as a diversion.

 

Fatigue and perfect posts (not they're perfect fully refreshed) can be a challenge.

[Chipper]

The audio standard is still the 16-bit CD. Super Audio CD and DVD Audio had a shot...didn't happen, and those were in better economic times when people were more likely to throw money at the gear to play back those niche formats. I get shot at most audio forums for saying this, but most people (myself included) cannot hear a difference between CDs and their compressed brethren (mp3, mp4 etc.). Can you blame engineers for doing a darn good job of fooling the brain on what it hears?

 

I'm not that old, but have done audio tests and 16.5khz is the maximum tone I could hear with the equipment I have. Forget hearing anything higher with real music playing. So mp4 around 130kbps works great for me and my portable Walkman player. Don't get me wrong...I love having the best possible audio whenever probable, but I'm not about to spend serious money when there's little chance of me hearing anything different. CDs are good enough for me...anything higher--24bit, 192khz to me is snake oil, and I don't want to oil a snake.