[Daygloworange]

I think there will be an eventual higher resolution digital system. Ironically, I don't think it will be driven by audiophile desires. But will certainly benefit them in the long run. 

The biggest problem with digital, is data storage limitations. CD's were limited in MB's.  Now that this will be a non issue, it leaves an open the door for an improved, higher sample rate, digital format.

I think that with the advent of Blu-Ray, and the quantum leap in data storage, that the potential for an improved digital format exists. Everything is progressing to a higher level. HD video is an obvious leap forward in resolution, video games are taking realism to new heights all the time. Audio will have to be improved as well.

Lots of studios that were strictly music studios, rushed out to become "post production" audio/video facilities since the advent of surround sound. There was a steady rise in low frequency content in music CD's since that became about. Any new format in the genre of audio/video, will crossover to 2 channel audio. As the technology of Blu-Ray becomes more the norm, every manufacturer will look at ways to implement it for their application. Pro audio will of course, be one. 

 Just like there was a natural progression in surround sound, I believe there will be one for an improved resolution AD/DA conversion system that capitilizes on the vast storage medium of Blu-Ray. How far off is it? Who knows?

It will come, inevitably.

Cheers

[Housteau]

I wonder if part of the solution is to add proper correction to the data before the D/A process, to help fix where the current CD standard falls short? 

I have been looking into the Burwen Bobcat system a bit:  http://www.danielhertz.com/

It is a software/hardware solution to a lot of the digital problems with CD that we are discussing here.  It is from Dick Burwen, Mark Levinson and Daniel Hertz.  I have read some very interesting things about this, and I plan on researching it more.

[Daygloworange]

Data correction? Prior to D/A conversion? That would mean there were errors in A/D conversion. It would have to have an algorithm that would know what the errors were during the A/D process. And based on what A/D converter?

If they invented a way to get a better A/D or D/A conversion process, I think the better move would be to license the technology to digital audio manufacturers, than to market to a small niche, like audiophiles.

I wouldn't put too much stock into that gizmo.

Cheers

[TONEPUB]

Give a listen to a couple of the best CD players and you might change your mind....

I've been auditioning the Naim CD555 and I can't believe how good it is.

Now if you could only buy one for about 4000 bucks!!  But the sound quality is
there!

[Russell Dawkins]

The Chair Guy - is there more to that quote from Tim de Paravicini? If so, could you provide a link to it, please.

I remember reading an article by him around 1988 in which he said more-or-less the same thing. Using mathematical proof that was way over my head (advanced math is not a strong suit for me) his conclusion at that time was that 16/44 was theoretically was good 'till roughly 3.5kHz, 16/88 'till 7 kHz, and 16/176 'till 14 kHz. 20/176 or 20/192 would seem to be enough for a new standard but would be seen by the consumer as inferior to 24/176 or 24/192.
In reality, 20/192 (or 20/44, for that matter)  exceeds the signal to noise capability of all but electronics designed for radio telescopes.

The main advantage of the longer word length is the extra room to play during the production process. For example, recording at 24/96 I no longer feel a need to try and hit maximum levels on the signal peaks during recording as I did when having to record at 16/44. On dynamic symphonic material when recording with a 16 bit word length, only the peaks are 16 bit. 24 dB down from those peaks, (a lot of the content is 20 and 40 dB under the peak) is actually employing only 9-12 bits! So, on CDs of uncompressed orchestral music, most of what you are listening to is in this range. Subtle use of compression can help.

The real advantage of the higher resolution systems is freedom from this limitation. I now record 24/96 at very conservative levels (peaks of -12 dB, i.e., with 12 dB to spare just for security and because I don't really believe the recording level meters.

[Wally King]

I've become convinced that CDs can sound plenty good enough if the recording engineer knows what the hell he's doing.  I don't buy many pop music CDs, but the pop CDs I do buy are consistently inferior, soundwise, to the jazz and classical CDs I buy. 

My assumption, based on reading posts to this circle, is that most of you guys out there buy mostly pop music CDs, CDs that are poorly recorded, overly-compressed, etc., etc., and then you spend vast sums of money in vain attempts to compensate for the fact that the engineer screwed up the recording beyond repair because he's incompetent or he thinks he's giving the public what it wants - after all, the music buyer is just going to play compressed files on an iPod.

[miklorsmith]

Now THAT'S sure to go over well!   

[PhilNYC]

My assumption, based on reading posts to this circle, is that most of you guys out there buy mostly pop music CDs, CDs that are poorly recorded, overly-compressed, etc., etc., and then you spend vast sums of money in vain attempts to compensate for the fact that the engineer screwed up the recording beyond repair because he's incompetent or he thinks he's giving the public what it wants 

I would say that's a bad assumption...

[WEEZ]

Yup. bad assumption.

WEEZ

[yooper]

Wally..

[ctviggen]

I despise pop music. 

[Wally King]

If "What are you listening to right now?" is  indicative of what most people listen to, then it sure looks like most folks listen to pop music, most of the time.  I'm not being critical of pop music.  I'm being critical of the manner in which most pop music is recorded these days. It can and should be far better than what is offered to the music-buying public. 

Which takes me back to the topic at hand - are CD standards "good enough?"  I say yes - if the engineer knows what he's doing, and if he's allowed to produce a musical document of quality.  It's apparent, based on what my ears tell me, that quality is not an issue that concerns the companies responsible for producing pop music for the masses.

[miklorsmith]

. . . Back on track, I think a well balanced setup doesn't sound horrible, even on average-quality CDs.

[Daygloworange]

Give a listen to a couple of the best CD players and you might change your mind....

I've been auditioning the Naim CD555 and I can't believe how good it is.

I think we're approaching this device from a different viewpoint. The Burwen Bobcat Suite is a software that modifies the bitstream. Whether is sounds pleasant to your ears is entirely personal, and subjective. There are plenty of ways of adding a sonic signature to audio.

However, it is not a sonically more pristine way of converting, storing, and reconverting analog, which is more germane to this thread.

If "What are you listening to right now?" is  indicative of what most people listen to, then it sure looks like most folks listen to pop music, most of the time.  I'm not being critical of pop music.  I'm being critical of the manner in which most pop music is recorded these days. It can and should be far better than what is offered to the music-buying public. 

Which takes me back to the topic at hand - are CD standards "good enough?"  I say yes - if the engineer knows what he's doing, and if he's allowed to produce a musical document of quality.  It's apparent, based on what my ears tell me, that quality is not an issue that concerns the companies responsible for producing pop music for the masses.

While I don't disagree with you in regards to current pop music sonically. It does go both ways. I have tons of Classical and Jazz that leaves much to be desired, sonically. Jazz and Classical recordings don't have anywhere near the budget to invest as many man hours to record them to astronomical standards, generally.

Record companies for the most part, are not in the business of audio philanthropy. They are there to churn a profit. They do what they need to do, in order to be profitable, while keeping costs in check. No different from any other industry. Is quality an issue? Of course it is. But is it to audiophile standards? No. That would not be best for the bottom line. Will it get better? I think so. Slowly. It has already in many regards, IMO.

I despise pop music. 

I don't despise pop music. I do however, despise pop culture. 

Cheers

[nathanm]

Obviously CD standards ARE good enough because the technically superior formats are more or less a commercial failure and even reduced quality MP3s are more favorable to WAV files according to the general public.  The medium is no longer the weak link. The artifacts of past mediums revealed themselves quite obviously.  Play a blank tape, a blank vinyl record and you will hear the medium itself.  Play a blank digital audio track and you hear nothing.  Or maybe you hear your amplifer.  I am all for cranking up digital format resolution, but I just don't think that modern sound quality hinges on the technical merits of Redbook audio.  All that matters, all anyone really cares about at the end of it all is human talent.  To me the difference between audiophiles and pop fans has more to do with recording techniques than digital bits.

[WEEZ]

Dayglow's and nathan's posts beg me to ask a two part question; (maybe Russell can answer)

Why does a good recording cost more to make than a bad one? and why do I pay the same price whether it's good or bad?

I don't understand why a good recording wouldn't also sound good on crappy playback equipment...and stellar on good equipment. Why an industry who keeps losing sales and  continues to produce bad product is beyond me. Wouldn't good products sell better? To everyone? Someone enlighten me here....

WEEZ

(as to listening to blank media...I've never got much enjoyment from that....)

[JoshK]

IMHO redbook can sound damn good, but typically doesn't.  enough said.

[TONEPUB]

Good recordings cost more to make than bad ones, because the handful of guys that are really
talented and picky charge more money than the mediocre ones, for one.  As with anything,
quality takes time and time is money.  Now that I've had the privelige of sitting in on a few
sessions with Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray (and I'm pretty sure the same thing happens
at MoFi, Classic and the others.) is that these guys are meticulous.

I've watched em do it over and over, just to wring that LAST bit of music out of the mix
and on to the disc.

And they cost the same, because in the scheme of things, whether they spend 500k to produce
a Madonna CD or a million bucks it doesn't really matter to the record execs.  These days there
are precious few record execs that are music people anymore (like it was in the 50's-70'), they
are marketing guys...  That's what happens when the suits take over any creative endeavor.

Every good recording I have sounds good on crappy equipment, but it can only sound so good
because crappy equipment doesn't have any resolution. The great thing about a crappy stereo
is that most music sounds ok! 

If people paid closer attention, better sounding records and CD's would sell more, but as
we all know, most people have never had the experience. Also, I see a lot of people listening
to music as background music or multitasking doing other things.

About the pop music/pop culture comment, isn't despise a little harsh?  I suspect a major
curmudge here....

And what music is so superior then?  And while we are at it, what's the best color?

I used to not be able to enjoy classical music, now I love it.  I don't have a huge pallette
yet, but it's cool to be finding another source of recordings to enjoy.  Can't we all just have
a little fun here?  The longer I live the more music I discover...

[Daygloworange]

Why does a good recording cost more to make than a bad one? and why do I pay the same price whether it's good or bad?

Your not paying for the audio quality, you're paying for the intellectual property of the artist, that's determined by what the market will bear for that particular artist at the time.

In a typical session, you need to mic instruments. You can easily spend many hours, even days on just a snare drum, (if you were really a perfectionist type) adjusting tuning, changing drum heads, changing snappies ( the wire thing on the bottom of the snare), muffling heads, trying different mics, different mic postions, different room placements, and room treatments, around the drum kit, just trying to get different sounds.

If you are paying session musicians to stand around while all this is going on, this adds to the cost as well.

This is "engineering" in studio lingo. At typical studio fees, a scenario like this could run thousands, upon thousands of dollars. And we're just talking about a snare drum. In pop recordings, one snare drum sound will not always work really well on every song, and then the process begins again.

That's just one instrument of many that need to be engineered to make a typical pop recording. Doing multiple takes, and compiling takes to make composite tracks (where a performer records many different takes of the same part, then you edit between the different takes and make a composite track that are segments of the various takes strung together to make an ultimate "take". This can take many, many hours.

Then you come to mixing. You might have engineered every individual sound to be really clean, full, dynamic, and clear, but that doesn't mean it'll blend well in the context of the song. You might need to pull bandwith out ( take out bottom end, pull out some mid-range, de-emphasize the treble) or post process (add compression, reverb etc..) in order to make the instrument blend well overall. Mixing often times is full of compromises, and you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Often times, something has got to give, in order to best serve the overall mix. This is part of the mixing process.

Mixing one song can take a few hours, up to many days, depending on the complexity of the music, number of parts, and just what end result you are trying to achieve. Often times, there is one "type" of mix done, then a different one of the same song is started from scratch, with all the faders and knobs, set to zero. Sometimes people do multiple mixes (5 or 6). Sometimes they send the session tapes out to have a big name producer or engineer do the final mix, before it gets sent off to mastering.

Then there is mastering. A lot of time can be spent there, tweeking and so forth.

Those are the main ways recording sessions go. Time is money, no matter how you slice it. And it's easy to wrack up a huge bill.

I don't understand why a good recording wouldn't also sound good on crappy playback equipment...and stellar on good equipment.

Because the playback equipment is crap. Distortion. Good equipment won't make a crappy recording sound good. You'll just hear the crappiness clearer.  

A good recording on crappy equipment, will sound a heck of lot better than a crappy recording on the same crappy equipment.

IMHO redbook can sound damn good, but typically doesn't.  enough said.

Yup. It can sound really damn good. Amen, brother!  

Cheers

[WEEZ]

I guess, then, a 'new' format won't really make any difference. Sad.

WEEZ