Maybe the public is awakening from the long, compressed nightmare?

[Mallette]

Well, probably not. However, NPR thinks so. I heard this piece this morning on the radio and it claims that more of the public is recognizing the deficiences of mp3 and other "diet" music formats and demanding better.

"Music fans are ready, according to a study done by the Consumer Electronics Association in 2011. It found 90 percent of consumers say sound quality is the most important part of a quality listening experience. And the industry may finally be ready to give it to them."

I've championed DSD for a long time here, and certainly hope maybe its time is coming.

Time will tell.

Dave

[Don Richard]

"Music fans are ready, according to a study done by the Consumer Electronics Association in 2011. It found 90 percent of consumers say sound quality is the most important part of a quality listening experience. And the industry may finally be ready to give it to them."

My concern with this is that most of the 90% don't know what good sound quality is. I'd be willing to bet most think BoSe = high quality sound. But one can hope.[]

[tromprof]

I am all in favor of good quality recordings, but couldn't quite figure out why DSD was the star of the story. Nothing against DSD, but 24/96 is pretty good too, as well as being more files to listen to (HD Tracks, DVD-A), easier (more receivers and DACs), and cheaper to listen to. But no mention of easy to find current high res. music files or equipment. So, I did a little searching and discovered Sony is pushing DSD equipment again, thus maybe the timing of the story. ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2013/09/04/sony-new-high-resolution-audio-products/2762773/ ) Guess they are supporting public radio.

[garyrc]

I hope it's true. It's about time.

Even though 90% don't know what good audio sounds like, let them hear it and they will know. That worked in every decade from the 1950s through the '90s, with brief vacations when solid state first came in, and when digital was introduced. In the 2000s, mp3, and the rest of the icky, eclipsed quality, due to the superior PR of the portable audio manufacturers. They practically sold it on street corners, near schools. Amazon offering mp3 versions of practically every music disk they sold, without a word about it being an inferior format, didn't help. Nor did the artificial spatiality of ear buds masking the distortion and truncated frequency response of mp3s. By now there has been enough time for great numbers of the victims to have heard live music, so, a change may be on the way.

Let's welcome DSD, 24/96, and the rest.

[WMcD]

So, let's see.

People listened to Edison cylinders

Then people listened to 78's.

Then found 33 rpm microgroove better.

We listened to Beatles on three transistor AM radios.

Then FM and AOR came out and even with the little systems sounded better.

Then 8-track, and cassette, and Dolby cassette. Maybe a step back in quality but more portable -- always at hand. Like the Walkman.

Then portable digital.

- - - -

My point is that there has been improvement over the century where the ordinary consumer has followed better quality and availability.

I understand that the audiophile's gripe is that most people have lagged behind the best that is available. But the overall trend has been positive.

Also, generally, we see that new technology is expensive at first and then more people come on board.

So, it seems to me that the point of the NPR story is pretty much in line with the frustration of audiophiles over the decades. "Listen to how much better the new technology sounds." And, "Your old technology as more shortcomings than you appreciate."

That is old news.

Smile,

WMcD

[Quiet_Hollow]

The problem was / is that by 1998, people were knowingly sacraficing the quality of their audio collections. It was an incredible willfull step backwards in an exhchange of quality for volume.

Folks that paid for an actual CD were laughed right out of their dorms...even though the downloaded source material would peel the paint off the walls when played back at mach 10 over the big frathouse systems on the weekend.

In one hand a person could have a sh*t ton of music for free...regardless of quality. On the other hand...they could pay $16-18 for a CD with 3, maybe 4 songs they really liked. And then there was no QA. Most files weren't encoded correctly...levels and bit rates all over the map, clipped off tracks, heck, some people were even ripping their cassettes to digital.[8-)]

Before the iPod came to market...MP3 was already king of the local network "thrift store" dropbox.

Check out this 2 minute video commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30yzkVYqRfs

Pete nails it right on the head. Whoever bought into compressed music, did so because they were motivated. People know better. No one pulled the wool over anyone's eyes.

Today, it's the hipster walk of shame, if anything...and savvy marketeers are funneling that guilt straight into vinyl record sales.

[garyrc]

In some cases, the public had to down the ladder a rung to go up two.

But some of us resisted.[] When stereo Lps came out, I never looked back -- well almost never.

I never listened to the Beatles on a portable transistor AM radios. If I heard them on an inferior system at a friend's home, or at a party, I'd listen a few minutes, and say "What's the name of that record?" Then I'd mentally plug my ears and later buy the Lp and take it home to play it with my Ortofon moving coil cartridge. I had a few friends who did the same, although they played them with Shure, Grado, another Ortofon, etc. This was at a time I was working at a low salary while going to college, and eschewed bowling, alcohol, and other expensive activities in order to buy records or go to movies.

At least cassettes dubbed from phono, or realtime duplicated by the likes of Crystal Clear, etc. had some high frequencies, starting with properly recorded TDK SD, and later, metal.

The biggest sell-out on my part was finally starting to collect CDs. Nobody's perfect. I like most of my SACDs and DVD-As, and I hope we move in that direction.

I'm surprised at the number of people I know, young and old, who should know better, but collect compressed music. I suspect they did have the wool pulled over their eyes, because they seem surprised when I question the quality.

[Mallette]

The blog entry I wrote, referenced in another thread here, that includes this subject has recieved what I consider to be pretty solid support not only from this community, but from others outside as well.

Most here have hit one or more, but what happened to get the public where it is was the result of multiple changes, mostly technological. While each was an improvement technology that does not mean an improvement in the qualities we hold dear. An audiophile today is a person who is AWARE of these issues, but in fact hears no better than Homer Simpson. Homer is impressed when he hears the real thing, but his "stereo" system is now a video-centered HT system and somebody is always using it for TV. Further, about all Homer has that might match what he heard at Ace Audiophiles house is a few leftover CDs and he's not going to buy more because "mp3s sound just as good" or so says all his peers and he has no reason to dispute that.

Without going through my entire personal odyssey yet again, the executive summary is >can't wait for CD and no more clicks, pops, cleaning 20 minute sides and hello perfect sound forever>10 years of decreasing listening and not knowing why>dragging out a turntable and going "Crikey, what up with THAT?">finding that tubes actually DID make things...even CDs...better>recording digital and discovering to my satisfaction that it COULD sound vinyl good if properly engineered>immediately realizing on first hearing that compressed music was smaller in direct proportion to the amount of music removed>being totally frustrated in finding that surround formats like DVD-A and SACD were not satisfying for the same reasons that CDs weren't, but even worse in many ways>experimenting and finding yet again that it was NOT the format, but the engineering.

Today, the worst impediment to Homer is that there is no universal format. That is, that requires no thought and plays on your IPod, in your car, on your HT system, your boombox, or whatever from precisely the same media and with only an "on" switch, a "play" button, and an volume control. Like Charlie Tuna, Homer wants music that tastes good, and could care less about good taste. He's going to push the easy button every time.

It will come as storage becomes virtually free and universal bandwidth increase due to the pressure of HD video needs, but I don't see any audio candidates in the near term. Yet, the early stirrings are encouraging.

Dave

[WMcD]

Actually, I'm just annoyed at NPR, even though I listen to it quite a bit. So I'm not disagreeing with you good fellows, just NPR.

WMcD

[Mallette]

So, I guess they are saying that DSD sounds about like a good LP?

It does. Analog tapes are being archived to it by people who know what they are doing. I did a blind A/B with very skeptical ears, including some from this group, a few years ago between a DSD I made from the legendary Crystal Clear Virgil Fox direct to disc LP and the verdict was precisely split and basically guessing.

The further advantage of DSD is that the extreme sample rate means that transcoding to any PCM rate is essentially a division by 1. If it sounded no better than 24/192 it would still be the better mastering rate if for only that single reason.

Dave

[Quiet_Hollow]

The further advantage of DSD is that the
extreme sample rate means that transcoding to any PCM rate is
essentially a division by 1. If it sounded no better than 24/192 it
would still be the better mastering rate if for only that single
reason.

But here's the rub with DSD. It's extremely proprietary.

It
serves only one purpose at the technical level...copy restriction. And
serves only one purpose at the market level..pushing still-born
hardware.

It is the HDMI equivalent of DVI.

It is the ALAC equivalent of FLAC.

It is Sony kool-aid.

It
accomplishes nothing that PCM (an open source, and historically grossly
under-utilized digital format) couldn't already do, and it is of no
benign consequence that it was released directly on the heels of
consumer level CD-R technology.

I realize I might be stepping on the toes of some of the SACD crowd here. It's not my intent to directly poo-poo anyones' gear..only to discuss the true intent of the format developers, that is to crank out "halo" technology every 5-8 years.

If DSD is where digital audio is headed, I'll have nothing to do with it. Same with Pioneer's PQLS. [+o(]

P.S. - Lossless
transcoding is not a bit-for-bit process. It is vector math. Extreme
sampling rates beyond any reasonable Nyquist rates bear no significance
regardless of value, because the limits of the integration are always
definite....ie. seamless.

[Mallette]

It serves only one purpose at the technical level...copy restriction.

Not sure how you get that opinion. I make them and copy them constantly. Never seen any copy restriction issues.

It accomplishes nothing that PCM (an open source, and historically grossly under-utilized digital format) couldn't already do,

It's the only format I've found that allows transcoding losslessly to any PCM level. 24/96 to 16/44.1 involves degradation that is audible even to my old ears. DSD to either does not.

I keep all my masters in DSD and have ever since it became readily affordable. Software players are free, but PC/soundcard makers have been slow to add decode...though ASUS and several others do in their high end models.

Dave

[Quiet_Hollow]

Not sure how you get that opinion. I make them and copy them constantly. Never seen any copy restriction issues.

That's due in large part because you are the originator of the file. Not so fun when a SACD is involved. Once a DSD file is on your computer you can certainly have your way with it, but it's the matter of physically "getting it there" is where the problems arise.

Then there's entire process of trying to share your copy-protected DSD product with a second party. [:#]

t's the only format I've found that allows transcoding losslessly to any PCM level. 24/96 to 16/44.1 involves degradation that is audible even to my old ears. DSD to either does not.

[:|] If that's the case...DSD ---> 16/44.1 with no apparent audible loss in quality, then I'm a little lost but, what's the point of the transcode then? Once the source is in 24/96 or DSD, what's the point of distilling it down any further? Devices are no longer that restriced either in storage capacity or throughput to warrant it. Not to mention that seems to imply that audio quality is a 2-way street above 16/44.1 which we both agree is not always the case in practice.

...high end models.

Bingo. []

I'm only trying to inform others that DSD, like all other highly integrated digital audio communication protocols, is not necassarily all it's cracked up to be. It's superiority as a bit stream definitely lies not in it's audio container.

I saw it as a Trojan horse 14 years ago, and still do to this day. I'm particularly cautious where the numbers don't add up in the customer's favor. That's why I never bought a SACD player.*

-QH

* Not that I've never had the pleasure of listening to a few as the source in some exceptionally nice systems.

[Mallette]

QH, as I said, I am not holding my breath for a truly universal format, but DSD is the best choice if once should emerge. As to your comment about being unable to rip a SACD, fully agree. But we were discussing DSD, not a physical medium, and the media of the present, as well as the future, is download. All DSD files I've purchased to date copy just fine. SACD itself is a dead issue, or at least on life support.

Point taken about transcoding, at least in the future. At the moment, it's how I get a CD so I can share the stuff in DSD I've recorded with friends and get something I can play in the car.

As to "high end models," it isn't a case of cost, it's a case of only folks like me, music producers, and other audiophiles who are interested. I expect it to start showing up in lower price cards and on MBs before long. 24/96 is common now on a number of MB chipsets and even 24/192.

I WILL insist the format is superior in a number of ways I've mentioned, file size included though not by much and file size is virtually irrelevant to all but the IPod crowd these days. Whether that gets it anywhere remains a question.

No interest in doing battle for it. 24/88.2 workds great for me...though I can detect a difference between it and 24/188.2 quite readily.

Dave

[garyrc]

So, I guess they are saying that DSD sounds about like a good LP?

IMO, in some ways good DSD sounds about as good as a good Lp, BUT, so far, not as good as the greatest Lps. Allow me to be very, very subjective. There seems to be a kind of "push" to Lps that is lacking in other formats. Some of this might be due to pleasing distortion because of the electromechanical properties of records, styli, etc., because some analog master tapes of the same material seem to have a little less of that "push," but have "ease," instead.

Of course DSD has the advantage of the ability to have 3,4,5, 5.1, or more channels.

[Quiet_Hollow]

...but DSD is the best choice if once should emerge.

well I'll be right behind you in line, with ticket in-hand, once Sony legal releases its death grip. [Y]

As to "high end models," it isn't a case of cost, it's a case of only folks like me, music producers, and other audiophiles who are interested.

Okay. I see your angle.... I was implying more along the lines of "what would the market bear."

I WILL insist the format is superior in a number of ways I've mentioned, file size included though not by much and file size is virtually irrelevant to all but the IPod crowd these days. Whether that gets it anywhere remains a question.

No interest in doing battle for it.

Understood and fair enough. [H] My only regret is that we couldn't be over at one anothers' place hacking this out over a little booze, pizza, and some Coltrane.

-QH

[Quiet_Hollow]

Some of this might be due to pleasing distortion because of the electromechanical properties of records, styli, etc., because some analog master tapes of the same material seem to have a little less of that "push," but have "ease," instead.

A null test would be a good way to see what difference, if any, you're experiencing between two sources.

[garyrc]

Some of this might be due to pleasing distortion because of the electromechanical properties of records, styli, etc., because some analog master tapes of the same material seem to have a little less of that "push," but have "ease," instead.

A null test would be a good way to see what difference, if any, you're experiencing between two sources.

I may not understand null testing, but wouldn't a tape and a Lp be bound to show some difference? if so, how would we know if the difference was the "push" I refer to rather than just a difference in some kind of noise?

[Mallette]

My only regret is that we couldn't be over at one anothers' place hacking this out over a little booze, pizza, and some Coltrane.

Amen to that...

Dave

[Mallette]

I may not understand null testing, but wouldn't a tape and a Lp be bound to show some difference? if so, how would we know if the difference was the "push" I refer to rather than just a difference in some kind of noise?

When I did the blind A/B test of LP vs recording the same LP, any noise, pops, etc were, of course, present in the recording. As I mentioned, the jury was perfectly split with most saying they were just guessing. Even if their were a flaw in the test I'd say whatever differences there are would be irrelevant without the presence of something to compare to. Certainly proved the point to me, and I've been archiving to DSD ever since. However, since that requires work I still find myself listening to the LPs themselves 80% of the time or so.

Dave