|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Yes, the first of April makes fools of us ALL!
And thank goodness for that. A bit of levity never did anyone any harm. Something that the more heated and so-serious forum members would do well to realise.
According to latest irreproachable and peer-group reviewed scientific report, it has now been proved that listening to downloads makes your ears grow excess hair and then drop off.
Major proponents of MCH announce it was all a joke, after all.
8-track cartridges make a shock comeback amongst audiophiles.
BR-A a 'roaring success' reports market analysts.
Living Stereos actually recorded in a shed by punk teenagers in 2003.
Receivers sound better than separates, announces Stereophile.
And Sony goes out of business, citing continued hatred from customers worldwide. Sorry, that one sneaked in, it's actually true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will the 8 track cartridges at least have Dolby b encoding?
And WD~40 will at least get rid of the clicking between track changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Will the 8 track cartridges at least have Dolby b encoding?
And WD~40 will at least get rid of the clicking between track changes
Indeed, anything for you, colonial scum.
Not many people know that 8-track was the most perfect music-carrying medium ever invented.
It even demonstrably surpassed those other noted paragons of musical technology, the compact cassette, compact disc and compact wax cylinder*.
* known, erroneously, in some quarters as a 'candle'.
|
|
|
Post by sylvian April 1, 2014 (14 of 80)
|
|
Disbeliever said:
+ 2 To hell with Downloads
+3
While I am apt for Hi-res tracks for my portable, I would not ever go into HD download as an alternative to physical format. Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
Interesting comments from all. Let me preface by saying that I own about 150 SACDs, 100 DVD-audio discs, and 1 Blu-ray audio.
Firstly, these physical formats are all just alternative ways of holding digital content. Obviously they differ in that SACDs are authored in DSD format. Many were recorded in analog and then mastered to DSD, some recorded in PCM then mastered in DSD, and others recorded/mastered in DSD. The DVD-A and Blu-rays were mastered in PCM. It is not the physical format that makes the difference, as there have been mediocre releases in all of these formats. Hi-Res PCM (HDTracks) and DSD (Superhirez) downloads are the essentially the same, but just skipping the physical media. The only difference between the DSD download and an SACD is that the former allows you to pass a digital stream to your DAC while the latter means that most of the time you are stuck with the DAC in your SACD player. Someone please explain to me the difference between the PCM download of Rolling Stones GRRR! from HDTracks versus my rip of the same from my Blu-Ray Audio disc? Or the DSD download of Thriller versus the same SACD? Likely None.
I think some of you may be thinking that a physical copy of a digital file is more worthy then the same digital file from another source.
I am not an advertisement for HDTracks or SuperHiRez, but I do buy from them due to their catalogue of contemporary music. Very few SACDs of contemporary music are being introduced unless they are from Japan, which are very pricey.
I reiterate that if you want to have a vibrant membership with more review postings, you should open yourself up to reviews of music in all hi-res digital download formats (24-bit DSD,WAV,FLAC,etc.) and not just SACD and Blu-ray audio!
Cheers.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
RB CD is perfectly good for Rolling Stones rubbish Grr.ugh .The DACs in my Sony combo are excellent. This a SACD & Blue Ray physical medium discussion & review forum, I want nothing to with PC audio.
|
|
|
Post by Iain April 1, 2014 (17 of 80)
|
|
Funnily, all these formats were harmoniously co-existing together until you lot came along.
Now see wot you've done? : )
|
|
|
Post by sylvian April 1, 2014 (18 of 80)
|
|
Partially agreed with Hires_arm concerning data structures. I have already mentioned, that my main probblem is sustainability of data carriers. While physical media serves as ROM and the only 2 problems you have to solve are the LENS/TRANSPORT and DAC the problem of purchased data you should have to add the reliable STORAGE, which is my main complaint. I am pretty sure that DSD authored data stemmed from PCM (whatever/resolution) sounds almost the same as downloaded original source. THE other thing is that almost none of the producer dares to sell you physical media wich does not meet hi-res criteria. On your home equipment you can recognize easily if the physical media sounds poor/flat/upsampled/bright/loud.....and then you are entitled to return the disc to the seller/producer and prove it by comparing to other hi-res recording but when you puchase only data you are not content with can you reclaim you money back??? I doubt it. The only advantage I can see that you can avoid additional costs (customs/ double VATing, p&p etc...) but I am apt for SQ at the first place and money only secondly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hires_arm said:
...
I reiterate that if you want to have a vibrant membership with more review postings, you should open yourself up to reviews of music in all hi-res digital download formats (24-bit DSD,WAV,FLAC,etc.) and not just SACD and Blu-ray audio!
Cheers.
Alan
It think it is clear that the main appeal of this site is its catalog of available hi Rez recordings, coupled with reviews thereof. This forum is useful and important sidelight to that main mission, but it is secondary. The site would wither and lose value and significance without the focus on the recordings themselves.
Downloads are not going away, and they might well be predominant someday. But, they are not today a significant source of original recorded material not already available on disk in hi Rez. So, if the hi Rez disk is already listed here and possibly reviewed, is it worth it to also cover downloads of the same recording? Some recordings are also available from multiple download sites in identical formats, resolutions, etc. Is it worthwhile to go to the considerable effort to catalog this duplication? Should sonic differences, if any, between the same recording from different sites be a topic in a recording review? At least one reviewer in The Absolute Sound magazine has (yawn) embarked on this.
Further, is is worthwhile for music reviews to dwell on possible differences between the download offerings from different sites at different resolutions - 96k vs. 192, FLAC vs. WAV, DSD vs. PCM, DSD64 vs. 128, etc, etc.? Also, there is the problem of "fake" hi Rez - RBCD resolution recordings merely upsampled to hi Rez downloads. Should they be covered too?
Your system might give different subjective listening results when comparing a hi Rez disc to its counterpart download. But, that is your system. My listening experience is that the better the system, the more insignificant these differences are as disc playback and download playback approach equivalent quality in the system.
So, I would not be in favor of covering the downloads in the main music section or reviews at this time. That might change someday. But, now it would be difficult, duplicative and it would invite recording reviews overly focused on the minutiae of formats, sampling schemes, etc. rather than on the music itself. I think this forum section of the site provides ample opportunity potentially to present and discuss, hopefully in peace, such minutiae. Even so, I think it risks opening a can of worms that could be very destructive to the site's main purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sylvian said:
................ On your home equipment you can recognize easily if the physical media sounds poor/flat/upsampled/bright/loud.....and then you are entitled to return the disc to the seller/producer and prove it by comparing to other hi-res recording....................
Really? Can one return a recording which disappoints you without objective proof that it is misrepresented?
|
|
