Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback
Reply #350 – 2014-11-19 21:30:34
THAT was M&M 's point. That great and obvious difference did not require >44kHz sampling or >16 bits in the delivery medium, to achieve. It did from business point of view. What enabled labels to dump millions of dollars into new masters was the advent of new formats with strong copy protection. If you stayed with the CD you wouldn't get it. Good lord, this is a weak and weasely argument, even for you. Can't you ever post something without personal remarks Steven? It gets tiring to sift through them.Hi rez is not marketed as 'better copy protected!' No one reviews the copy protection of hi rez releases. Its not what you and your ilk rave about. Re-read my post. I said that both high resolution formats came about not because of consumer demand but business need. The labels needed better copy protection. Hardware companies wanted to sell new gear and make money from patents. These business motivations funded spending money to remaster content in those formats. Nothing was said about marketing anything or stating the obvious that the consumer doesn't want or care about copy protection. Dial down the level of angst and read the posts more carefully.Here's the facts: Sub-audiophile mastering was not a development *necessitated* by the CD format. (It's actually a perversion of the original intent of CD) It certainly was. CD did not have copy protection. Labels wanted to get rid of the format so supported two new ones that had such. So you have full context, what I am positing comes from direct and personal interactions with music labels and CE companies. And you didn't *necessarily* avoid it with 'hi rez' either. I have hi rez releases that are as 'smashed' as their 'modern remastered' CD counterparts. TAKE A LOOK Off-topic. David asked why the small incremental fidelity like we are finding in Stuart's tests justified the new formats. I explained that there were titles with huge difference due to different masters. So the fidelity difference was definitely there in the form of finished goods that the consumer could buy.So even you can see, surely, how mendacious it is to ascribe 'better sound' to the *hi rez format* ? That's what magicians call *misdirection*. No, I call you totally confused about what discussion David and I were having. You keep repeating these talking points of yours regarding high res. I hear you. And much of it is true. But off topic. You are jumping in the middle of a discussion thinking it is the larger spec vs spec battle. It is not. We are discussing the business end of two new physical formats entering the market.The fact is, we play the odds when be buy music. The odds of getting an audiophile mastering might be *better* for 'hi rez' but it's still a gamble, and it still just shows how contemptuous the industry is of us -- when the same mastering could be offered on CD or 16/44 download, for less $$. Sure. And I gave you even more insidious reasoning as to why high resolution formats came about. Why are you complaining then? I was not in any way form or fashion supportive of those physical formats. Not because of your tired talking points. But because of the stupidity of setting back convenience from CD. When Blu-ray copy protection system was being designed, I was at the table as one of the founding companies (AACS). Studios walked in with their list of improved copy protection. I walked in with one: one free rip of the disc included in the price. They asked why. I said everyone could rip DVDs. We could not improve fidelity but then take away that option. We better offer that right. You may know this as "managed copy." I left the industry and unfortunately they never finished that work which resulted in breach of Blu-ray's copy protection by both honest and dishonest users. This is what I like about today's high resolution offer. It is free of copy protection so can be very portable. It doesn't harm anyone for it to be out there. But satisfies many of us who want it. This infuriates you why? How many angry posts do we need to read from you Steven? What business of yours is it to keep running around creating animosity among members with these battles? The world has changed and you need to change with it. This is not 2007. It isn't. Look it up! We are *talking about*, at root, the overblown claims for hi rez audibility that have accompanied it since at least the late 1990s. The sequence of reports since then about hi rez sound from Stuart, from Oohashi et al, Meyer & Moran, from Monty, and everyone in between, have *all* been about that, in essence. *You* don't get to dictate what *my* thread is about, Dancing Man. Once again, you are totally confused. Go back and start reading from David's post. I have explained it all again above. You are so emotional that you can't even read what is post objectively. Or let totally logical arguments sink in.