Post by dhinged October 26, 2013 (1 of 15)
|
|
I've always wanted SACDs to come out because I could tell the audio loss in a CD compared to a record (warmth and resolution vs clarity and crispness) probably due to the fact that I had super-normal hearing most of my young life (33KHz high-end hearing at 18, I don't remember the low-end), but I've felt bad that they've never arrived. I've always thought 32-bit digital audio would be the ultimate, it would have the depth of a record player (and actually be beyond what 99% of people could hear), but have been disappointed that it never caught on. I've noticed SACDs have a very deep quality and feel as though the band is in the room.
I know the reason is because most people couldn't tell the difference between SACD and CD (or had too much noise going on in their head or just weren't aware enough) , but then I'm caught by the difference in mp3 quality nowadays, sellers moving from 128kbp/s to 256 and then to 320... it just strikes me as a dichotomy that people don't want SACD but prefer 320 to 128 mp3... also that people prefer mp3 to CD (CDs are dying because of it) because they say they can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD!
Why are people being sold 256kpb/s and 320kbp/s mp3s instead of SACDs when most of them say they can't even tell the difference between any of these formats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
dhinged, the dichotomy of which you speak has been plaguing many of us for years.
That you are blessed with such great hearing is a bonus because a lot of us don't have your supersonic aural capabilities but do know the difference between MP3 and SACD and ironically, in some instances, the MP3 is actually more expensive than a physical SACD.
The very same dichotomy exists in the transition from DVD to Blu Ray. Some cannot perceive a difference (unless projected on a large screen).
But truth be told, the MP3 "choosers" also want to select certain tracks (the top ten mentality) and not be burdened with purchasing a disc of which they only want a few cuts. And the other reason is selection. Almost every album imaginable is available in MP3 but sadly, SACD caters to classical music lovers and old rockers and jazz lovers. SACD does NOT cater to current music in the latter category which alienates a slew of potential adopters.
Blu Ray Audio discs are just starting to appear on the worldwide markets and may aleviate that "gap" but will doubtfully be the salvation that many of us "high enders" are hoping for as many of the big coglomerates (SONY, Universal Music and Warners) are oblivious to current trends (unlike the Blu Ray video market which caters to new and old tastes, alike....without prejudice).
Selection is KEY and until that happens.........MP3 will be dominant over physical SACD!
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 27, 2013 (3 of 15)
|
|
In terms of download time and storage space, there is hardly any justification anymore to offer MP3 instead of 16/44 lossless.
I think the major reason why music download stores sell 320kbs MP3s instead of lossless formats is that MP3 is the only format that plays on every device on the market. They probably consider it's too confusing for customers to be offered multiple alternative formats (FLAC, Apple lossless), and that people will complain that FLAC files they bought don't play on their iPod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
In terms of download time and storage space, there is hardly any justification anymore to offer MP3 instead of 16/44 lossless.
Methinks that depends what you are storing onto. If it is an iPhone or iPad or equivalent (which would indeed be the case for the great unwashed masses), then you might typically have about 8gig free just for audio storage ... which is only 15 CDs uncompressed, or perhaps 30 CDs with Apple Lossless. Which is pretty small. I wouldn't even get a fraction of my Bach cantatas onto that.
And since people have collections of hundreds or thousands of CDs ... and want it all ... they use MP3 ... and will continue to do so for many, many, many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CDs aren't dying because people prefer mp3 to cd based on quality alone. They prefer it because they can get music easily and often for free streamed right into their noggins via their MP3 players, often without concern for quality. Most people don't use a stereo in their homes to listen to music, they use their cars, headphones, and boomboxes to listen...all of which are means to listen where quality isn't an issue.
|
|
|
Post by steviev October 27, 2013 (6 of 15)
|
|
dhinged said:
I've always wanted SACDs to come out because I could tell the audio loss in a CD compared to a record (warmth and resolution vs clarity and crispness) probably due to the fact that I had super-normal hearing most of my young life (33KHz high-end hearing at 18, I don't remember the low-end), but I've felt bad that they've never arrived. ....
Actually, even people with mild hearing loss can hear the warmth of an LP versus the clarity and crispness of a CD -- that's because CDs never lose their high-frequency content, perfect sound for life and all that. And I don't know what you mean by resolution, but I can definitely better distinguish oboe from clarinet from flute or guitar from harp from piano when listening to a CD versus an LP. My middle-aged ears can barely hear anything past 15,000 Hz, though at age 18 I could hear all the way up 25,000 Hz.
I agree that SACDs do give you a sense of being there, or vice-versa. Multichannel Blurays do a good job of that, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MP3 is for listening on the go. SACD is for sitting down and letting the music envelop you. They're very different purposes, and folks seem to do the latter less often. And I'll freely admit that the hybrid SACD is nice since it allows me to listen to the music I purchased in either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, the majority of music that's sold has quality where high quality Mp3 vs lossless isn't going to make a difference, even to the most discerning of listeners, because they are brickwalled masters anyway -- and on top of THAT, the lossless becomes much bigger (where classical orchestral music might be 300MB, the same amount of brickwalled pop/rock will probably be 450MB)
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood October 30, 2013 (9 of 15)
|
|
If that isn't confusing enough, movies now routinely have HD audio of one flavour or another.
A music blu ray (e.g. Return to Forever live) is a joy to behold.
So people want high quality audio when they are distracted by video?
|
|
|
Post by akiralx October 30, 2013 (10 of 15)
|
|
Ubertrout said:
MP3 is for listening on the go. SACD is for sitting down and letting the music envelop you. They're very different purposes, and folks seem to do the latter less often. And I'll freely admit that the hybrid SACD is nice since it allows me to listen to the music I purchased in either way.
Exactly - I listen to 90% of my music (classical) via mp3 on my 3 hours of commuting every day, via my iPhone and the best earbuds I can find (Etymotics).
SACD listening is for the home. Unless there's a portable SACD player I don't know about?
|
|
