My music listening is now 100% high resolution as yesterday I deleted all MP3's from my hard-drive as they are just too compromised in resolution compared to high resolution music files and SACDs. While more comfortable than CD, they just do not sound good enough after listening to a steady diet of high resolution downloads and SACDs. I sadly said goodbye to music I may never hear again, and I have no 44.1kHz digital now in any form now.
Most of my SACDs are DSD or analog recorded. And my high resolution music files are 24 Bit 88.2kHz to 192kHz.
The comfort level was not enough, damn it I need resolution too! I have updated my blogs to reflect my new feelings about low resolution MP3.
Perhaps you've seen it, but here's another sorry excuse, from the recording industry, for claiming that analog is superior to DSD:
ReplyDeleteAnalog's attraction lies in its ultra-high resolution capability, Spitz explains. Direct Stream Digital (DSD), the high-resolution digital disc format Sony used for its audiophile SACD format, is capable of 2.884,000 transitions per track per second, but a high-quality mastering tape contains approximately 80 million transitions per track second. "And that's just for 1/4-inch two-track tape running at 15 IPS," says Spitz. "The resolution goes up substantially with wider tracks and higher (tape) speeds."
from Analog recording makes a comeback
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029668
The only problem with this claim is that the higher number of "transitions per track per second" doesn't translate into an actual superior performance parameter. It's a meaningless spec fabricated to give the impression that analog tape has some mystical advantage over DSD. If they had any good evidence, they would have used it.
I think the pop-recording industry's fear of SACD is that it's easy for pirates to make excellent MP3 recordings from SACDs by tapping into the analog output of an SACD player. It's harder to make a recording of comparable quality from a CD, because of the difficulty and/or cost of prying actual music from the clutches of 44.1 KHz/16 bit. (As far as FLACs go, I suppose there's a serial number buried in every download, so that any copies can be traced back to the buyer.) It's also far more difficult to make comparable recordings from LPs. (There actually doesn't seem to be any practical limit to how much you can spend on trying to get all of the information from an LP, although they sound more musical on a cheap turntable than CDs sound on a cheap CD player, which probably explains their recent resurgence.)
By making their original masters analog, artists can guarantee that they have the best copy as long as it's in good condition. Of course, they make 44.1/16 copies of it for CD-release, and analog copies for LP release. They might make a DSD copy for security if it can be done in a totally secure manner.
So, it seems to me that one of the main reasons the industry dislikes SACDs is the fear of piracy. It seems to me that the best solution is to offer SACDs versions and good-quality basic players at affordable prices and make it cost-ineffective to get inferior pirated versions. It might also help to put lucrative bounties on pirates' heads.
Why the Bedini Clarifier improves the sound of CDs, SACDs, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt turns out, as I suspected, that the error correction systems in digital disc players don't produce error-free results, as indicated in the following excerpt:
But hang on a minute, the Music Server still gets the data from CDs?
You may be asking if CD players have trouble extracting the data on the CD then doesn't the same issue exist for the music server. The answer is that the methodology for putting the data onto the music server hard disk is quite a different process to that used when a CD is playing music. For obvious reasons when you play a CD in your hifi then the CD is read once only in real time, any errors have to be dealt with on the fly there and then. On the other hand when you rip a CD into the Music Server then you use a computer. Computers are designed to read and process data. Thus the CD reader can read the disk multiple times to try and extract the data rather than relying on one read and then error correction. Furthermore there are some sophisticated programs to read CDs ( such as Exact Audio Copy ) that correct for misalignment of the laser and use checksums to ensure a perfect bit copy. All of this means that the digital tracks on the hard drive are the best possible source possible. Remember for the best music production the source must be of the highest quality.
from All your questions on Music Servers and Music Renderers answered by LP Revivalist
http://www.lprevivalist.com/music_servers.html
By using a Bedini Clarifier, which evidently neutralizes static charges on the bottom of the disc, the raw (uncorrected) error rate is reduced, and this reduces the (partially) corrected error rate, thus improving the sound. Mystery solved.
This is a good example of why I prefer a no-compromise approach myself, and why I proposed an elaborate, idealistic distribution scheme which some might claim is pointless in light of the supposed satisfactory quality of mp3 downloads. My system would also allow a pay-per-play charge (it would be small enough so that most people wouldn't mind paying it), which might allow the initial cost of the recordings to be brought down.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, what were the bit rates of your mp3's?
Most of my MP3s were 320 kbps. The high resolution downloads especially 88kHz and higher sound considerable better but they do take up a lot more memory.
ReplyDeleteI really love SACDs the best, especially DSD recorded ones, I am hoping they will be the last remaining physical format. I handle them with care and put them in plastic resealable outersleeves to protect their cases against scratches. Computer audio is for the things I cannot get on SACD or DVD-Audio.