IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Neil Young’s new audio format, “revolutionary new audio music system…highest digital resolution poss”
db1989
post Sep 11 2013, 17:19
Post #126





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 11 2013, 17:09) *
It's a different world - though I don't believe people like Cookie Marenco go into it to become rich.
Yeah, I should stop assuming they all do. But what real justification can there be for charging such exorbitant prices? To fund the equally overpriced hardware they think they need for producing such recordings? Either way, money is wasted, and myths are propagated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 11 2013, 17:46
Post #127





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (binaryhermit @ Sep 11 2013, 16:00) *
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no. DSD is only one bit. It is about the sample rate.

This post has been edited by greynol: Sep 11 2013, 17:58


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 11 2013, 17:49
Post #128





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 11 2013, 09:09) *
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 11 2013, 18:05
Post #129





Group: Members
Posts: 3372
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 11 2013, 12:46) *
QUOTE (binaryhermit @ Sep 11 2013, 16:00) *
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no. DSD is only one bit. It is about the sample rate.

I think he was referring to bit rate, which is a combination of bit depth and sample rate (but then you already knew that).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
binaryhermit
post Sep 11 2013, 18:06
Post #130





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 23-April 09
Member No.: 69212



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 11 2013, 11:46) *
The answer is actually no. DSD is only one bit. It is about the sample rate.

I was actually talking about bitrate. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that. Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps. Is this true?
EDIT: Or what PDQ said while I took way too long to type this reply. (End edit)
And yes, I should have been more clear about what the $5/song, $50/album was referring to.

This post has been edited by binaryhermit: Sep 11 2013, 18:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Sep 11 2013, 18:06
Post #131





Group: Members
Posts: 408
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 11 2013, 17:49) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Sep 11 2013, 09:09) *
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction


I would make a different conclusion from the article:
QUOTE
Marenco charged $5 a song and $50 [...] Thousands of people came to download.
[...] This year she says she started making more money from her online music sales than she does from her work as a recording engineer.


Customers are clueless, and Morenco like money.

This post has been edited by extrabigmehdi: Sep 11 2013, 18:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 11 2013, 18:14
Post #132





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167





--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 11 2013, 18:14
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 3372
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (binaryhermit @ Sep 11 2013, 13:06) *
Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps. Is this true?

IIRC (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), 2.8224 Mbps, which is twice the normal bitrate for CD, encodes two channels of DSD. The reason for storing twice as many bits as standard CD is otherwise it would have been inferior in sound quality to the format it was trying to replace.

This post has been edited by pdq: Sep 11 2013, 18:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
binaryhermit
post Sep 11 2013, 18:27
Post #134





Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 23-April 09
Member No.: 69212



I just realized that my figures forgot to include the number of channels for each format. So stereo SACD is actually 4x the bitrate of CDs*.

*SACD apparently uses lossless compression of the DSD stream to increase the amount of audio it can hold and therefore the bitrate wouldn't be 4x when actually on the disc.

EDIT: Upon further review, I wasn't quite correct. Stereo can use this compression scheme, multichannel must use this compression scheme.

This post has been edited by binaryhermit: Sep 11 2013, 18:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Sep 11 2013, 23:03
Post #135





Group: Members
Posts: 201
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.

This post has been edited by TomasPin: Sep 11 2013, 23:07


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricJ2190
post Sep 12 2013, 00:10
Post #136





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 17-April 13
Member No.: 107705



QUOTE (greynol @ Sep 11 2013, 10:07) *
I encourage everyone to contact NPR about that fluff piece. Ask why there is no mention of Meyer and Moran and point to the Chris Montgomery videos.


You can let them know what you think here. I did.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ethan Winer
post Sep 12 2013, 20:27
Post #137





Group: Members
Posts: 248
Joined: 12-May 09
From: New Milford, CT
Member No.: 69730



QUOTE (TomasPin @ Sep 11 2013, 18:03) *
I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull

Like the record companies, artists are glad to sell you their same titles all over again.

--Ethan


--------------------
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mach-X
post Sep 13 2013, 00:28
Post #138





Group: Members
Posts: 269
Joined: 29-July 12
From: Windsor, On, Ca
Member No.: 101859



QUOTE (TomasPin @ Sep 11 2013, 18:03) *
You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.


There are electronic drum and bass artists who should know better because they are very familiar with creating digital music, but they still tout the 'lossy compression removes bass' flag to sell you more expensive flac files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 14 2013, 19:20
Post #139





Group: Members
Posts: 789
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



I know it's already been said, but we all know that the new format is not going to contribute in any meaningful way to better sound. So if anything it has to be down to different mastering. Whether or not Neil understands this we don't know, but you can bet that those surrounding him and working with the technical details certainly will.

The primary reasons for the new format are clear. One to help keep it propriety, two for marketing differentiation, and last but not least to increase the placebo potential.

This post has been edited by uart: Sep 14 2013, 19:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jkauff
post Sep 15 2013, 11:18
Post #140





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 161
Joined: 1-October 01
From: Doylestown, PA
Member No.: 145



The mastering quality of Neil's own releases isn't very consistent. I'm not sure I'd want him deciding what the "best possible mastering" would be.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Sep 15 2013, 22:04
Post #141





Group: Members
Posts: 201
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



@Ethan & Mach-X: That's true, in the end business is business. Maybe I'm a bit naive... Thanks for your replies.


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 1 2014, 11:12
Post #142


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



Sorry for the thread resurrection, but an interview with Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records has shown up on the BBC website...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27161894
...given this is the BBC, the "Hear the difference for yourself here" link looks amazingly like advertising to me! Though I'm sure her description of mp3's "small sound" will annoy more people here wink.gif I suspect her description of music executives being deaf (she used more diplomatic language), and their secretaries having better ears, is spot on.

Interesting to see the microphone placement - it's not purist/minimalist.

If you grab the "for BBC vistors" free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/bbc and compare them to the previous free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/ you will see that the new samples don't have a 5.6MHz DSD option, only a 2.8MHz DSD option, and the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

They're nice recordings.

(I have no connection with this - I just like people making nice recordings, even if they do make technical claims which I doubt)

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Juha
post May 1 2014, 11:47
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 14-February 07
From: EU-FIN
Member No.: 40610



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 1 2014, 13:12) *
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this exists?

This post has been edited by Juha: May 1 2014, 11:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 1 2014, 12:52
Post #144


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Juha @ May 1 2014, 11:47) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 1 2014, 13:12) *
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this exists?
More meaningful than 5.6MHz vs 2.8MHz DSD!!!

At least 192kbps mp3 sometimes does sound audibly inferior.

btw, I picked the 320kbps one over the 128kbps one in that link pretty easily. In the minority though apparently.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kees de Visser
post May 1 2014, 14:01
Post #145





Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 22-May 05
From: France
Member No.: 22220



Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post May 1 2014, 15:39
Post #146


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5059
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Kees de Visser @ May 1 2014, 14:01) *
Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email huh.gif
I think that's a waste of electrons. I'm sure she's done plenty of sighted DSD vs 24/96 tests and believes what she says.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kees de Visser
post May 1 2014, 18:11
Post #147





Group: Members
Posts: 648
Joined: 22-May 05
From: France
Member No.: 22220



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 1 2014, 15:39) *
I think that's a waste of electrons.
You're kidding aren't you ? One email compared to DSD downloads ? Now who is wasting electrons ? tongue.gif

I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
QUOTE
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files. The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)


This post has been edited by Kees de Visser: May 1 2014, 18:34
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post May 1 2014, 19:36
Post #148





Group: Members
Posts: 978
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



High datarate craze!
Archimago just offers a simple listening test running 24/96 against 16/96 and uses samples from 2L for that. The recording was done at DXD rates and one listener when i read it correctly can't tell the 96kHz verions from each other because 96kHz is already way to bad sounding against the DXD version...

This post has been edited by Wombat: May 1 2014, 19:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post May 2 2014, 04:24
Post #149





Group: Members
Posts: 2181
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Kees de Visser @ May 1 2014, 13:11) *
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
QUOTE
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files. The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)




'blindfold tests'? I call bullshit. I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 2 2014, 04:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maurits
post May 2 2014, 10:32
Post #150





Group: Members
Posts: 370
Joined: 30-September 05
From: London, Europe
Member No.: 24805



QUOTE (krabapple @ May 2 2014, 04:24) *
QUOTE (Kees de Visser @ May 1 2014, 13:11) *
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
QUOTE
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files. The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)


'blindfold tests'? I call bullshit. I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?

"OK, first you need to put on this blindfold. Then we are going to play you a FLAC file, followed by a WAV file. Please tell us which one sounds better."

This post has been edited by Maurits: May 2 2014, 10:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 22:31