[Stu Pitt]

James,

I've heard you talk about dealing with recording professionals several times.  Have you asked any of them what the future holds for recording standards?  Do they think hi-rez will ever become the standard?  In which format - downloadable, Blu-Ray, etc?

Everyone keeps talking about hi-rez this and hi-rez that, downloads this and downloads that.  It seems like a very small number of labels, mostly small lables like Linn are offering this.  Do you think the major labels will follow suit?  Will I get uncompressed and high-rez Metallica any time soon?

Maybe the artists themselves will start releasing hi-rez downloads on their websites, like Pearl Jam is doing with their current album (not hi-rez though) and many are doing with their concerts (also not hi-rez).

Just interested if you've heard anything or have asked.  It seems like everyone is buying gear that'll do hi-rez, yet we have very little if any music that'll actually take advantage of it.

[Stu Pitt]

Just to add...

Phish is appearantly offering hi-rez downloads of their concerts on their website.

http://www.livephish.com/packages/2,21/Phish-mp3-flac-download-Festival-8.html

A bit pricey, from mp3 through "FLAC-HD" if you ask me.  Metallica's FLAC concerts are $12.95.

[1ZIP]

Sometimes I think I'm living in a different world than you all.....What is this Hi-Rez of which you speak?

[James Tanner]

James,

I've heard you talk about dealing with recording professionals several times.  Have you asked any of them what the future holds for recording standards?  Do they think hi-rez will ever become the standard?  In which format - downloadable, Blu-Ray, etc?

Everyone keeps talking about hi-rez this and hi-rez that, downloads this and downloads that.  It seems like a very small number of labels, mostly small lables like Linn are offering this.  Do you think the major labels will follow suit?  Will I get uncompressed and high-rez Metallica any time soon?

Maybe the artists themselves will start releasing hi-rez downloads on their websites, like Pearl Jam is doing with their current album (not hi-rez though) and many are doing with their concerts (also not hi-rez).

Just interested if you've heard anything or have asked.  It seems like everyone is buying gear that'll do hi-rez, yet we have very little if any music that'll actually take advantage of it.

It's a really good question Stu and I would say that the specialty companies I have spoken to say online will be limited to 96/24 files due to excessive download times and file sizes  and 176 and 192 will be released as DVD's that you load on your computer.

The recording engineers I have spoken to in the mainstream do not think anything above 96/24 is going to become a standard.

Jury is still out on what resolutions are detectable and the digital resolution tests going on at McGill University will be quite interesting... me thinks.

james

[James Tanner]

Sometimes I think I'm living in a different world than you all.....What is this Hi-Rez of which you speak?

Hi 1ZIP,

Hi RES refers to High Resolution Digital files. Usually anything above 44.1/16 bit (CD Standard) is considered high res (48, 88, 96,176 and 192K/24bit).  The files are available online and on DVD's.

james

[Stu Pitt]

Thanks James.  That answers a lot of questions.

[Wayner]

Hi-rez offers a huge obstacle when downloading files that aren't compressed. The only sourcen that I know of (that's practical) is optical.

Wayner

[Stu Pitt]

The more I think about it, I do actually have a lot of hi-rez music...

Vinyl.

[werd]

The more I think about it, I do actually have a lot of hi-rez music...

Vinyl.

Actually i think you are bang on with that. As vinyl represents a true HD analogue signal. Or the type of signal that Hi rez music is trying to obtain. The output of a cd player or dac isnt considered a true analogue signal. The signal comes out in bits and pieces and doesnt form a perfect sinewave. The cd or dac player has to smooth out the edges. The more bits employed or higher-rez signal (as they call it) makes the output signal look more analogue with less tinkering to smooth out.

Whats nice about higher bits is it's better voltage signal drive than normal 16 bit. This is what i like about hi-rez files and does seem to outperform vinyl with better bass slam, but thats about it. all imho.

[vegasdave]

I agree.

[Stu Pitt]

That's a great explanation werd.  I never thought about it that way.  It reminds me of a drawing I was somewhere - it had an analog sine wave, and a digital wave transposed under it.  The digital wave was straight lines (basically a step pyramid).  It looked like a good deal of information was missing from it. 

[werd]

That's a great explanation werd.  I never thought about it that way.  It reminds me of a drawing I was somewhere - it had an analog sine wave, and a digital wave transposed under it.  The digital wave was straight lines (basically a step pyramid).  It looked like a good deal of information was missing from it.

I like it too. That was taken from my 6th edition Tocci,Widmer and Moss digital text book (by memory unquoted),  the section on dacs and their output. It  stuck with me and made me appreciate vinyl playback  more.  It really highlights the disadvantage of cd playback.

[JRace]

the question remains though, is there an audible difference between redbook and hi-res sample rates? In other words, is the missing data audible.

The Mcgill study mentioned by James should help to answer the question.

Unfortunately it is impossible to compare a CD recording to an LP recording as there are far too many variables from production to playback.

[werd]

the question remains though, is there an audible difference between redbook and hi-res sample rates? In other words, is the missing data audible.

The Mcgill study mentioned by James should help to answer the question.

Unfortunately it is impossible to compare a CD recording to an LP recording as there are far too many variables from production to playback.

It's not going to take a Mcgill study to answer that... of course there is. Hi rez playback sounds more organic/vinyl. I do think though that we are on the last breath of vinyl. In a few more years HD playback will be the norm and outperform vinyl in all catergories. In the not to distant future HD/processor capability will trample all over what cd has to offer and demand in itself by default higher rez playback from optical/HD playback. The Recording industry will  to keep up. They are resisting it now but will have to conform to the digital equivalent of extremely high ram with very low voltage storage.

[HsvHeelFan]

James wrote:
===========================================
The recording engineers I have spoken to in the mainstream do not think anything above 96/24 is going to become a standard.

Jury is still out on what resolutions are detectable and the digital resolution tests going on at McGill University will be quite interesting... me thinks.

james
==========================================

This ^ is the right answer.  On a bit of a side note, as much as everyone talks about "digital", the world is really an analog place.

Digital is, at it's core, still analog and digital signals have loss, skew, crosstalk and all kinds of other problems just like the analog signals of yesterday. The higher the digital frequency, the more problems one will have with signal path and everything else.

The higher bit rate audio reproduction tests will be interesting.   I don't recall the details of why 44khz was chosen for CDs, but I suspect the 44khz for redbook CD's was based on 2x the max frequency that one wanted to capture based on the work of Harry Nyquist and they wanted something that would exceed the 20hz-20khz range that audio equipment normally covers.

The 44khz seems like a very reasonable engineering decision based on Nyquist's work and the 20hz - 20Khz frequency spectrum and if you can't hear the difference, what's the point of high res, besides eating bandwidth?

We need to know the results of the higher resolution audio tests.

HsvHeelFan

modified:  okay, so the quote thing is weird over here.

[werd]

James wrote:

The recording engineers I have spoken to in the mainstream do not think anything above 96/24 is going to become a standard.

Jury is still out on what resolutions are detectable and the digital resolution tests going on at McGill University will be quite interesting... me thinks.

james

This ^ is the right answer.  On a bit of a side note, as much as everyone talks about "digital", the world is really an analog place.

Digital is, at it's core, still analog and digital signals have loss, skew, crosstalk and all kinds of other problems just like the analog signals of yesterday. The higher the digital frequency, the more problems one will have with signal path and everything else.

The higher bit rate audio reproduction tests will be interesting.   I don't recall the details of why 44khz was chosen for CDs, but I suspect the 44khz for redbook CD's was based on 2x the max frequency that one wanted to capture based on the work of Harry Nyquist and they wanted something that would exceed the 20hz-20khz range that audio equipment normally covers.

The 44khz seems like a very reasonable engineering decision based on Nyquist's work and the 20hz - 20Khz frequency spectrum and if you can't hear the difference, what's the point of high res, besides eating bandwidth?

We need to know the results of the higher resolution audio tests.

HsvHeelFan

I remember hearing that the head of Sony records wanted to be able to fit Beethoven's 5th on a cd. (that could be urban legend).

The higher the bit count, it lowers the noise floor and also is more defined in it's ability to assign voltage to freq. Which means more linear playback with a stronger voltage drive.

[HsvHeelFan]

Werd wrote:

========================================
I remember hearing that the head of Sony records wanted to be able to fit Beethoven's 5th on a cd. (that could be urban legend).
========================================


Well, since Beethoven V is about 30 minutes long, that isn't it.  It could be the 9th, since it's recordings vary from around 74 - 79 minutes.

It would have to be one of the quicker recording's of the Ninth to fit on a single CD.

Beethoven is one of my favorite composer's, but he didn't know what a tuba was, so I never get to play Beethoven.  I always get to sit and listen.

HsvHeelFan

[werd]

Werd wrote:

========================================
I remember hearing that the head of Sony records wanted to be able to fit Beethoven's 5th on a cd. (that could be urban legend).
========================================


Well, since Beethoven V is about 30 minutes long, that isn't it.  It could be the 9th, since it's recordings vary from around 74 - 79 minutes.

It would have to be one of the quicker recording's of the Ninth to fit on a single CD.

Beethoven is one of my favorite composer's, but he didn't know what a tuba was, so I never get to play Beethoven.  I always get to sit and listen.

HsvHeelFan

Hi

That sounds correct, it was a  Beethoven symphony. Guessed at the 5th.

A&W invented the tuba so i can't imagine tuba in any Beethoven     

Papa burger .... mama burger ...

[Mike Nomad]

The choice of sampling rate has to do with the tech Sony had at their disposal. The first digital recorders were modified Sony U-Matic 3/4" video tape machines. NTSC resolution, combined with the ability to put only three bits per line (showed visually as black and white blocks), gets us to 44,100: 490 lines (525-VBI) x 3 bits x 30 frames.

To go a little further, the reason CDs are the size they are, is because that is as big as they could go, and still get a player to fit in a normal automobile dash opening. Originally, CDs did not go past 63 minutes, quickly went to 67, then 74. As the tech is maturing, we can now go to 80.

Hi-Rez is a moving target. We call it Hi-Rez because we have something to compare it to. Not really any different than comparing 33 1/3 LPs to Bernoulli Cylinders. We now have better (more) storage: DVD, Blu-Ray, and hard/flash drives. CD as a storage medium is the new floppy disc. The audio formats will eventually catch up, taking advantage of the new storage space at their disposal. Depending, of course, on the mood of the lawyers.

[95Dyna]

Werd wrote:

========================================
I remember hearing that the head of Sony records wanted to be able to fit Beethoven's 5th on a cd. (that could be urban legend).
========================================


Well, since Beethoven V is about 30 minutes long, that isn't it.  It could be the 9th, since it's recordings vary from around 74 - 79 minutes.

It would have to be one of the quicker recording's of the Ninth to fit on a single CD.

Beethoven is one of my favorite composer's, but he didn't know what a tuba was, so I never get to play Beethoven.  I always get to sit and listen. 

HsvHeelFan

I have two recordings of the 9th each on a single CD one at 66 min. and the other at 64.  The latter is the 1952 recording by Arturo Toscannini which, along with Wilhelm Furtwangler's is considered the benchmark.  I have a third recording on vinyl by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra at 72 min. which was acquired prior to the advent of CD.  This is the longest rendition I am aware of.  Perhaps it was the 9th that was used as the target capacity for the original CD.  Beethoven's music is otherworldly to me.  Just as it was with Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky, there is Beethoven then there is everybody else.