Post by Cookie January 20, 2013 (71 of 358)
|
|
The text of this post has been deleted by the moderator. Reason:
Promoting vendor links. Please don't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max74 said:
I find what Andreas starts talking about at roughly the 26:00 minute mark very pertinent (with regards to the provenance of DSD material). One may argue of its actual importance or value, but personally speaking (as an average consumer) I'd like to know I'm listening to something produced and preserved with DSD from the beginning when I purposely wish to seek out a recording in the DSD domain.
This should be an easy marketing win for record labels who know that there are consumers out there who care (and are not necessarily enthusiasts who have time or the wherewithal to research this).
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cookie said:
On that panel from RMAF, we may agree about DSD (which was the purpose of the panel) but we have widely varying views about provenance, which I feel is crucial to survival of DSD and played a part in SACDs demise
Demise of SACD? There were more than 700 new SACD titles released last year.
Have companies like Analogue Productions, MoFi, Audio Fidelity switched from SACD to DSD downloads? Last time I checked their websites, they were all advertising new and upcoming SACDs, not downloads...
|
|
|
|
|
|
tailspn said:
The 128fs (Double DSD) thing is all fairy dust. There are no production companies/labels recording in it, there are no editors or post production tools yet, and there's questionable tradeoffs to its adoption. That will change in a year as the Merging Horus gets its 128fs record and play capability turned on, its Pyramix 8 software does DSD, and labels actually record real acoustic music with it. Until then, it's some guys with their Korg 1000/2000 making some non-commercial experiments with previously recorded music (tape), and someone playing a harmonica. Talk about windy….
Talk about a bleak outlook for DSD downloads :(
|
|
|
Post by canonical January 20, 2013 (75 of 358)
|
|
Cookie said:
Once accepted, the second order from Austria came to us so damaged physically, that we rejected the whole lot after checking 2000 discs and finding only 100 that played.
Tell me about it. Last night, I had to return my pizza ... they didn't make it properly either.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn January 20, 2013 (76 of 358)
|
|
audioholik said:
Talk about a bleak outlook for DSD downloads :(
Where's the connection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
old-dog-newtricks said:
I am now confused why Polly supports this site as surely he would be quite happy with RBCD for stereo at least?
More generally, why is it that the perceived quality of today's RBCD is better than that of those released in the first 10 years of the format?
I'm not saying in any way shape or form that I believe in the audio equivalent of conflating (in digital photography terms) 0.1MP = 1MP = 10MP = 100MP. Rather that a RAW picture losslessly compressed & then uncompressed is exactly the same as the original RAW picture - to the pixel!
Have another look at what I said...
re RBCD's sounding better than before? I'd guess better A/D converters (>>16/24) than before & editing facilities that allow for a better master (more flexibility re takes, "splicing", headroom etc) to be created before down-converting to RBCD standard.
|
|
|
Post by zeus January 20, 2013 (78 of 358)
|
|
It seems to me that if the proponents of DSD downloads hope for any traction, they're going to have to do something like include a voucher for a free (or low cost to cover overheads) download with their SA-CDs. When people have/see enough content maybe then they'll be curious enough to investigate the purchase of a DAC/player to support them. Selling something for more(!!!) than a physical disc on the premise that it's "better" won't wash. The going (median) price for quality 24-bit downloads (I'm loath to use the meaningless term "Studio Master") of new material is around $18 and often less. While I'm sure there are some happy to pay David Robinson's $40-$50 I'm not one of them. If that's the target price, why even bother in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy January 20, 2013 (79 of 358)
|
|
zeus said:
It seems to me that if the proponents of DSD downloads hope for any traction, they're going to have to do something like include a voucher for a free (or low cost to cover overheads) download with their SA-CDs. When people have/see enough content maybe then they'll be curious enough to investigate the purchase of a DAC/player to support them. Selling something for more(!!!) than a physical disc on the promise that it's "better" won't wash. The going (median) price for quality 24-bit downloads (I'm loathe to use the meaningless term "Studio Master") of new material is around $18 and often less. While I'm sure there are some happy to pay David Robinson's $40-$50 I'm not one of them. If that's the target price, why even bother in the first place?
I agree. Regardless of the work put in $50 for a download is not a viable business model. A Hybrid SACD is such great value that the download people need to offer their wares for lower prices than the SACD version or offer something extra. Afterall, once the DSD file has been made, putting it onto a physical disc and pressing a few thousand copies and printing liner notes etc is a major cash investment. Putting the file on a website for paid download costs far less - and consumers expect the benefits of this lower cost-to-market price. There lies the perceived value problem for downloads...
|
|
|
Post by Hitters January 20, 2013 (80 of 358)
|
|
Nagraboy said:
I agree. Regardless of the work put in $50 for a download is not a viable business model. A Hybrid SACD is such great value that the download people need to offer their wares for lower prices than the SACD version or offer something extra. Afterall, once the DSD file has been made, putting it onto a physical disc and pressing a few thousand copies and printing liner notes etc is a major cash investment. Putting the file on a website for paid download costs far less - and consumers expect the benefits of this lower cost-to-market price. There lies the perceived value problem for downloads...
+1
|
|
