[…]Very odd they make the claim that what any of them are doing can in any way be construed as revolutionary. Apparently Neil Young hasn't heard of HDTracks, as just one example.
T-Bone Burnett is another one always willing to slam sound quality nowadays, but he also made the genius suggestion that if you're an artist today, you should stay off the Internet, because everybody is on it and you won't stand out
Quotepresenting the highest digital resolution possibleThat's a nice moving target to aim for!
presenting the highest digital resolution possible
Quote from: 2Bdecided on 04 April, 2012, 07:25:12 AMQuotepresenting the highest digital resolution possibleThat's a nice moving target to aim for!I see it as an indefinite number, a conceptual amount that is only approached.In fact there are only practical limits to digital resolution. We can make sample lengths and frequencies in the digital domain as large and as frequent as we have the numbers to express them with. We can approach the highest digital resolution possible by establishing arbitrarily large numbers of arbitrarily large numbers, right?
If you think about it, it only makes sense to move to a better format: The Red Book CD audio standard came out in 1980. The original IBC PC came out in '81 and had a 4.77 MHz 16 bit processor. It's now 2012 and 2 GHz (and greater) and 64 bit is common now. Thus, we should be listening to 64 bit audio sampled at 18.5 MHz.
Neil Young has claimed he was working with the late Apple boss Steve Jobs on a follow-up to the iPod. Young said he and Jobs were developing a new device for listening to "high-resolution audio", which would download content "while you're sleeping".
There is also some skepticism about whether it's a good idea, but I think that ship has sailed.
Here's a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital
For a forum that prides itself in adhering to the scientific method (ABX tests), this thread has a lot of lame jokes about something nobody apparently understands.If your position is that Redbook audio is as good as it gets, this kind of reaction may make some sense. But there are a lot of people who believe otherwise. That doesn't make it true, but it would be nice if HA members showed a bit more curiosity about the details.It must be DSD. There is a lot of DSD activity behind the scenes right now, with a number of manufacturers working on devices that can play it. There is also some skepticism about whether it's a good idea, but I think that ship has sailed.Here's a link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital
I fail to understand how the very real reasons why DSD is not ideal (certainly as a mastering-stage format, or as a final listening format for that matter) have suddenly become irrelevant ...
But it does have one attribute that I haven't yet mentioned. It is much, much, much easier to hide anti-piracy code in a DSD datastream than it is in PCM.
That was a joke, right?
QuoteWhat do Pono's cloud-librarieskind of unfortunate naming, come to think of it
What do Pono's cloud-libraries
This is a story that begins in earnest in the early 1980s, when digital music first arrived in the form of the compact disc. At first, Mr. Knopper suggests, almost everyone was frightened of these small, shiny new toys.The labels worried about digital piracy and about refitting the factories that made vinyl LPs. Record stores didn’t want to buy new sales racks. Producers worried about the effects on recording sessions, now that every footstep and door click would be audible. A group called MAD (Musicians Against Digital) quickly formed, and artists like Neil Young declared that CDs were soulless. “The mind has been tricked,” Mr. Young said at the time, sounding a bit like Yoda, “but the heart is sad.”
Well, the quantization noise is a huge problem for DSD already as a straightforward playback format. Processing 1-bit audio requires addition of even more quantization error, so anything you do in that realm will begin to present audibly injurious results very quickly. Any mastering done for SACD, therefore, by necessity is done in PCM, usually around 24/(352.8/384), and then reconverted.Mastering audio in a 64-bit floating point environment (as in, any respectable DAW out there today) presents absolutely no problems with audible quantization (in order to introduce audible quantization, you'd have to process the track trillions upon trillions of times), and is highly compatible with any desirable iteration of native PCM.
Sometimes I think it'd be wonderful to be that crazy. Being afraid of plastic discs seems so much simpler than being afraid of not living up to one's potential and other genuinely meaningful things.
The link suggests DSD is the equivalent of 16-bit PCM at 176kHz, so it is not that bad?